[Continuation] The One Covid-19 Science and Medicine Thread Part 3 - Page 6

The Atheist · 23rd December 2020, 10:58 AM

Strains again...

The Poms have discovered the South African strain in UK.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55428953

Little surprise when it's the dominant strain there. Again the suspicion these variants are more contagious.

Modified · 23rd December 2020, 02:10 PM

Originally Posted by marting

https://github.com/mbevand/covid19-age-stratified-ifr

Interesting data set and chart comparing various published estimates of influenza and Covid-19 IFR rates v age.

Basically Flu v C19 converges around age 5 and diverges to 2.9 at age 30, 8.5 at age 50 and 13.5 at age 70.

C19 includes 13 data sets around the world. Flu is USA CDC sets from the last 7 flu seasons.

The exponential fit (above childhood) for both diseases is quite remarkable. For flu there is slight flattening from 30-60, but I would expect it to be much flatter.

marting · 23rd December 2020, 02:57 PM

Originally Posted by Modified

The exponential fit (above childhood) for both diseases is quite remarkable. For flu there is slight flattening from 30-60, but I would expect it to be much flatter.

Deaths per capita in the age groups are flatter I think but these are IFR estimates based on case rates and about a 50% flu asymptomatic which they apply equally across ages. It's complicated by flu being somewhat endemic and the older you are the more likely you have been previously exposed. So I suspect asymptomatic percentages may be higher for older people as they have been exposed to multiple flu variations in the past.

There is a general issue with Covid-19 and what qualifies as symptomatic. There was that interesting study the CDC reported of a summer camp that got infected and it was isolated from the outside through the course of the disease. Attack rate was 91% among those that hadn't previously had Covid-19. About 15% had tested positive for antibodies previously and none were infected. And, remarkably, virtually every infected kid exhibited one or more symptoms. They kept detailed records on each kid in the camp.

Very different from the flu. The population is virtually totally naive to covid-19. Fresh meat, as it were.

The Atheist · 23rd December 2020, 05:32 PM

More on the mutated versions: https://www.economist.com/science-an...-transmissible

tl;dr - we don't know.

marting · 23rd December 2020, 08:08 PM

Covid-19: Evidence is lacking to support vitamin D’s role in treatment
and prevention:

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/371/bmj.m4912.full.pdf

And the withering rapid responses

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....14.20152728v3

I particularly like this pithy piece:

Quote:

NICE notes that there are currently four other trial protocols registered world-wide that are addressing this topic: NCT04476680; NCT04483635; NCT04386850; NCT04535791.[5] Of these only two: NCT04386850 in Iran and NCT04535791 in Mexico are placebo-controlled and addressing COVID-19 severity. They are planned to complete in March and July 2021, respectively. If, as currently hoped, the pandemic may be waning by Easter, these trials, if successfully completed, will tell us retrospectively whether or not many lives might have been saved by a stronger promotion of vitamin D supplements that cost pence and are extremely safe. Is that really what evidence-based medicine is meant to be about?

marting · 23rd December 2020, 10:44 PM

This study suggests D may be harmful.

Vitamin D and Covid-19 Susceptibility and Severity: a Mendelian Randomization Study

This is really different. Mendelian randomization? Appears to be correlating Covid-19 outcomes with genes associated with higher 250HD. Not sure about the D but there does seem to be some correlation between the selected genes and Covid-19 outcomes.

https://icite.od.nih.gov/covid19/sea...90975.full.pdf

Quote:

In conclusion, using a method that has consistently replicated RCT results for 25OHD outcomes in large sample sizes, we find no evidence to support a protective role for vitamin D supplementation in Covid-19 outcomes. Our findings also suggest that all ongoing RCTs studying vitamin D supplementation should have mechanisms in place to detect early signs of worsened outcomes, and that public health recommendations should advise more caution about taking 25OHD supplements.

The Atheist · 24th December 2020, 02:18 AM

Originally Posted by marting

Covid-19: Evidence is lacking to support vitamin D’s role in treatment
and prevention:

Best example of hedging their bets I've seen.

"We don't have enough evidence, but there is an association, so take it."

Originally Posted by marting

And the withering rapid responses

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....14.20152728v3

Fairly unequivocal in the end, though:

Quote:

Vitamin D supplementation was safe and reduced risk of ARI, despite evidence of significant heterogeneity across trials. Protection was associated with administration of daily doses of 400-1000 IU vitamin D for up to 12 months.

Originally Posted by marting

Mendelian randomization?

Isn't that GIGO taken to its extreme? Any time you need to make assumptions at the start I'm deeply suspicious of the conclusion.

What pisses me off is that 10 months after the pandemic had been established, we don't have a definitive answer on vitamin D.

Even nicotine underwent a clinical trial somewhere (France?), we've had the HCQ trials started and abandoned... the lack of cohesion around testing possible therapeutics is abysmal.

Ulf Nereng · 24th December 2020, 07:49 AM

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Best example of hedging their bets I've seen.

"We don't have enough evidence, but there is an association, so take it."

Fairly unequivocal in the end, though:

Isn't that GIGO taken to its extreme? Any time you need to make assumptions at the start I'm deeply suspicious of the conclusion.

What pisses me off is that 10 months after the pandemic had been established, we don't have a definitive answer on vitamin D.

Even nicotine underwent a clinical trial somewhere (France?), we've had the HCQ trials started and abandoned... the lack of cohesion around testing possible therapeutics is abysmal.

More than one trial, actually. Still nothing conclusive, though.

https://www.vapingpost.com/2020/12/1...inst-covid-19/

The above is apparently to a site that promotes vaping, but it gives a useful update.

And on the other hand, an anti-tobacco site has a different viewpoint! lol

https://exposetobacco.org/wp-content...Studies_02.pdf

Bob001 · 24th December 2020, 09:58 AM

Originally Posted by marting

This study suggests D may be harmful.
....

Your link isn't opening for me. But how could vitamin D at a standard RDA dose -- not megadosing -- be harmful? We know it's essential, and low levels are called deficiencies with known negative consequences.

Seems like the bottom line with vitamin D and covid is that maintaining a normal level might help, and can't hurt.

The Atheist · 24th December 2020, 10:24 AM

This is interesting:

Quote:

One mink-associated variant bears the same mutation as the coronavirus variant now spreading rapidly in the United Kingdom

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...ndemic/617476/

In light of no evidence to the contrary that I can find, it might mean the new strain came from minks. The timing would be right for starters.

____________________________________

There's a fair bit of noise being made about this study and another from UK, suggesting having been infected is a good shield against another infection, but I'm not so sure.

Given the short time frame involved, plus the strong likelihood protection wanes over time, a 90% reduction in likelihood of reinfection in a short time-frame doesn't seem to be pandemic-ending.

marting · 24th December 2020, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by Bob001

Your link isn't opening for me. But how could vitamin D at a standard RDA dose -- not megadosing -- be harmful? We know it's essential, and low levels are called deficiencies with known negative consequences.

Seems like the bottom line with vitamin D and covid is that maintaining a normal level might help, and can't hurt.

Here's a link to the abstract:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....08.20190975v3

marting · 24th December 2020, 11:57 AM

Estimated transmissibility and severity of novel SARS-CoV-2 Variant of Concern 202012/01 in England

https://cmmid.github.io/topics/covid...in_England.pdf

Very nice analysis on 4 possible explanations for increased transmissivity. They have different implications on policy. For instance reduced reproduction time with constant R0 v just increased R0. And, of course, immunity escape. Finally, increased transmission amongst children.

Bob001 · 24th December 2020, 12:46 PM

Originally Posted by marting

Here's a link to the abstract:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....08.20190975v3

A key phrase from the abstract:

Quote:

Further, our results do not apply to individuals with vitamin D deficiency.

But the whole point of the discussion is that people with low levels of vitamin D, as might be the case for nursing home residents and some ethnic groups, are apparently more likely to suffer severe covid outcomes, not that excess levels act as preventatives. So the obvious conclusion is that enough vitamin D is good, and too much is not.

The Atheist · 24th December 2020, 01:45 PM

Originally Posted by marting

Finally, increased transmission amongst children.

That alone would be a huge difference, and it's quite intriguing.

I've gotta say, the mutations so far don't give me warm fuzzies about what might happen when we put some serious evolutionary pressure on the virus.

jimbob · 24th December 2020, 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by The Atheist

That alone would be a huge difference, and it's quite intriguing.

I've gotta say, the mutations so far don't give me warm fuzzies about what might happen when we put some serious evolutionary pressure on the virus.

There is *always* going to be a selective pressure for increased infectivity.

marting · 24th December 2020, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by Bob001

A key phrase from the abstract:

But the whole point of the discussion is that people with low levels of vitamin D, as might be the case for nursing home residents and some ethnic groups, are apparently more likely to suffer severe covid outcomes, not that excess levels act as preventatives. So the obvious conclusion is that enough vitamin D is good, and too much is not.

The basic problem with the study's extrapolation to Mendelian Randomization is that the latter predicts relatively small variation in D levels. By far the largest population variation is due to lack of sunlight's uV and to a lesser degree diet. And IU 400 D supplements don't raise D levels much. Which is why this letter came out:

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...301197338.html

The Atheist · 24th December 2020, 04:47 PM

Originally Posted by jimbob

There is *always* going to be a selective pressure for increased infectivity.

Infectivity's largely irrelevant - it's increased virulence that would make it a much bigger problem.

marting · 24th December 2020, 10:43 PM

Mathematical analysis of Córdoba calcifediol trial suggests strong role for Vitamin D in reducing ICU admissions of hospitalized COVID-19 patients

https://icite.od.nih.gov/covid19/sea...11.08.20222638

Abstract:

Quote:

A randomized controlled trial of calcifediol (25-hydroxyvitamin D3) as a treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients in Córdoba, Spain, found that the treatment was associated with reduced ICU admissions with very large effect size and high statistical significance, but the study has had limited impact because it had only 76 patients and imperfect blinding, and did not measure vitamin D levels pre- and post-treatment or adjust for several comorbidities. Here we reanalyze the reported results of the study using rigorous and well established statistical techniques, and find that the randomization, large effect size, and high statistical significance address many of these concerns. We show that random assignment of patients to treatment and control groups is highly unlikely to distribute comorbidities or other prognostic indicators sufficiently unevenly to account for the large effect size. We also show that imperfect blinding would need to have had an implausibly large effect to account for the reported results. Finally, comparison with two additional randomized clinical trials of vitamin D supplementation for COVID-19 in India and Brazil indicates that early intervention and rapid absorption may be crucial for the observed benefits of vitamin D. We conclude that the Córdoba study provides sufficient evidence to warrant immediate, well-designed pivotal clinical trials of early calcifediol administration in a broader cohort of inpatients and outpatients with COVID-19.

The Atheist · 25th December 2020, 01:41 AM

Originally Posted by marting

Mathematical analysis of Córdoba calcifediol trial suggests strong role for Vitamin D in reducing ICU admissions of hospitalized COVID-19 patients

We had that a while back.

While the results look good, I'd be the first to note it's a very small number.

__________________

Meanwhile, "new" variant #3 in Nigeria, which is undergoing a surge right now.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/...ria-africa-cdc

marting · 25th December 2020, 08:01 AM

Originally Posted by The Atheist

We had that a while back.

While the results look good, I'd be the first to note it's a very small number.

The smallness of the study is offset by a compelling, small p value.

We had reported the study this report referred to but this one is only a few days old. The original report has been widely ignored for various issues. This one out of MIT, looks at these issues from a detailed statistical POV analyzing how much they could have altered the results. It concludes the study is, in fact, compelling.

The Atheist · 25th December 2020, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by marting

It concludes the study is, in fact, compelling.

As you know, I've been promoting D since almost the start, so I'm a fan of the study. Just the numbers bother me - small samples skew too easily and all the post-hoc analysis can't change that possibility.

It yet again emphasises the "why the **** haven't we got large, randomised, double-blinded trials on the damned stuff?"

marting · 25th December 2020, 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by The Atheist

As you know, I've been promoting D since almost the start, so I'm a fan of the study. Just the numbers bother me - small samples skew too easily and all the post-hoc analysis can't change that possibility.

It yet again emphasises the "why the **** haven't we got large, randomised, double-blinded trials on the damned stuff?"

The problem with small sample sized trials is that the "p" value is going to be pretty big unless there is a large difference in outcomes.

For instance testing whether a coin is fair or not. Take two coins. Coin A, by design, has heads probability of .55 while coin B has a heads probability of .9.

Flipping each coin 50 times is going to give a high p value (over .05) against the hypothesis that the coin is not fair for coin A while it will be extremely small (under .01), hence "statistically significant" that coin B is not fair.

It's more important that the sample size be large when one is interested is detecting smaller effects.

This study has such large effects, even with a small N, that it becomes compelling evidence of Vit. D efficacy. The MIT folks addressed the major reasons the study has been largely ignored. There are remaining issues. Possibility of fraud, or some other confounder not addressed.

I'm a bit skeptical generally of studies that come in with P values around .05. Selection bias is a real issue. How many RCT's are registered v reported at conclusion? Observationals are worse. Not so much fraud as wishful thinking. Just look at the HCQ insanity. And then the antipathy for HCQ (likely because of the DJT hype) produced a whiplash and Nature published a crap "peer reviewed" piece that aligned with existing beliefs and perhaps especially, because it went against DJT. Very understandable and human.

There's something similar in the areas of vitamins, herbs, and such. And I think for good reason. Long history of charlatans makes one skeptical. But one still has to look at evidence and it does pop up from time to time.

Worse in the soft sciences.

The Atheist · 25th December 2020, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by marting

Worse in the soft sciences.

Amen on that, brother! I am not a fan.

Puppycow · 27th December 2020, 04:41 AM

COVID-19 clampdown: Japan closes borders to foreign nationals

Quote:

Borders are continuing to tighten around the world as governments respond to the threat of a new, more contagious strain of the coronavirus.

Effective on Monday, Dec. 28, the Japanese government will bar most foreign nationals in an effort to curb the spread of the virus. Entry bans were already in place for international travelers from more than 150 countries all over the world, including the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom.

The latest move, which will last until at least the end of January, simply builds upon the nation’s already strict entry requirements, and even Japanese nationals and foreigners with residency returning from short business trips, according to Bloomberg, must now comply with a 14-day quarantine, along with multiple COVID-19 tests.

The list of countries includes the US and Canada, as well as most European countries.

Quote:

Japan, once a glowing example of successful pandemic control, is now experiencing its highest-ever number of COVID-19 cases. And the highly infectious coronavirus variant has already been confirmed in Japan. In Tokyo, nearly 950 new cases were recorded on Saturday — a grim record for the island nation.

It’s a discouraging turn for Japan, which was widely reported to be planning to welcome back international travelers in the spring in preparation for the rescheduled Summer Olympics.

Countries around the world have turned to new border restrictions, increased testing and enhanced screening measures in a last-ditch effort to contain the new coronavirus strain, which was first identified in England in September. In the U.S., travelers from the U.K. must now provide a negative COVID-19 test result taken within 72 hours before departure.

But experts fear the precautions may be far too late. In addition to Japan, Bloomberg reported that the new strain — which is thought to be 70% more transmissible — has already been reported in France, Switzerland, Germany, Ireland and Sweden, among others.

I guess they are worried about this so-called new strain. 70% more transmissible, supposedly. But even the original strain is already on the rise here again.

My understanding is that is has been found in Japan, but only in returning travelers during their quarantine period. So it's not exactly here yet, as in not spreading in the community yet.

The official page:

https://www.mofa.go.jp/ca/fna/page4e_001053.html

The Atheist · 27th December 2020, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

COVID-19 clampdown: Japan closes borders to foreign nationals

Yeah, your numbers are going the wrong way.

I'd say July Olympics are still in the balance.

Meanwhile, a couple of interesting pieces on long Covid:

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ed-new-clinics

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...ter-five-weeks

Some pretty ugly numbers there, too. They'd be a very good reason to be more careful not to let it spread...

...if most places hadn't missed that point already.

Dr.Sid · 27th December 2020, 12:23 PM

Christmas will have dire consequences around here .. so far the numbers are dropping, because of the holiday .. but so many people from my social bubble got it just now (and their moms, literally). Next week numbers are not going to be pretty.

marting · 27th December 2020, 12:44 PM

1 of every 17 people in the U.S. has been infected, and 1 in 1,000 has died. Yet the worst may lie ahead.

I was appalled reading this New York Times story.

Published in MSN (no paywall) as well.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/27/u...lie-ahead.html

They said: "Still, U.S. case numbers are about as high as they have ever been. Total infections surpassed 19 million on Saturday"

They conflate cumulative cases with cumulative infections.

And then they point out that 1 in 1000 have died. But 1 in 17? It's just wrong. If it weren't it implies the IFR is 1.7%.

According to the CDC, many more have been infected than 1 in 17.

The reality is that most Covid-19 infections are never diagnosed and reported. Undiagnosed cases were likely 10x in the early days of Spring when testing was limited. CDC estimates were 1 in 7 in Sept. Now it's down to maybe 1 in 5. So the IFR is maybe .3%. However, since April, about twice as many younger people were infected than older people and they have far fewer deaths so likely the IFR is around .5.

And while I'm at it, what does "Still, U.S. case numbers are about as high as they have ever been. Total infections surpassed 19 million on Saturday" even mean? Reported cases are cumulative. By definition, US Cases are always as high as they've ever been.

What an awful story.

marting · 29th December 2020, 11:40 PM

Efficacy and Safety of Ivermectin for Treatment and prophylaxis of COVID-19
Pandemic

Preprint of an RCT on Ivermectin v HCQ (standard of care in Egypt) on 200 mild/moderate and 200 severe covid-19 patients. Also 200 health care workers to detect prophylactic effect.

Very strong, positive impact on all 3 IVM groups. p < .001

https://icite.od.nih.gov/covid19/sea...manuscript.pdf

Planigale · 30th December 2020, 12:53 AM

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Yeah, your numbers are going the wrong way.

I'd say July Olympics are still in the balance.

Meanwhile, a couple of interesting pieces on long Covid:

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ed-new-clinics

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...ter-five-weeks

Some pretty ugly numbers there, too. They'd be a very good reason to be more careful not to let it spread...

...if most places hadn't missed that point already.

The problem is people think they will get better far quicker than is reality. I link below to information about bacterial pneumonia. Most people will still have symptoms 3 months after pneumonia and it takes six months for most people to have completely recovered. Most people creating the concept of long covid are not people who have experience of looking after people who have had a serious infection. Only yesterday I had an unpleasant discussion with the son of a patient who was in hospital with pneumonia (not covid) last month. He was saying that she was sent home too soon, she is still tired and in pain (pleurisy). I went through how long it takes for the body to heal - his response was they were told all that when she left hospital last month, so why was I just repeating things they had been told. I did not say the last place to leave your elderly mother is in hospital at the moment.

https://www.blf.org.uk/support-for-y...monia/recovery

lionking · 30th December 2020, 01:16 AM

Originally Posted by Planigale

The problem is people think they will get better far quicker than is reality. I link below to information about bacterial pneumonia. Most people will still have symptoms 3 months after pneumonia and it takes six months for most people to have completely recovered. Most people creating the concept of long covid are not people who have experience of looking after people who have had a serious infection. Only yesterday I had an unpleasant discussion with the son of a patient who was in hospital with pneumonia (not covid) last month. He was saying that she was sent home too soon, she is still tired and in pain (pleurisy). I went through how long it takes for the body to heal - his response was they were told all that when she left hospital last month, so why was I just repeating things they had been told. I did not say the last place to leave your elderly mother is in hospital at the moment.

https://www.blf.org.uk/support-for-y...monia/recovery

My young, fit, athletic son got infected in March on a flight back from LHR to MEL. Amongst other things the virus caused inflammation of his heart. If anyone dares tell me that covid is just a sort of flu, violence may follow.

Darat · 30th December 2020, 06:24 AM

Looks like the dominoes are going to start to topple in NHS England after lockdowns came too late:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/h...-b1780338.html

Quote:

Patients at one of London's busiest hospitals have been forced to wait more than 24 hours for a bed as A&E doctors and nurses — said to be at 'breaking point' — urged bosses to declare a major incident.

The number of coronavirus patients at The Royal London Hospital, in Whitechapel, has increased by 200 in a matter of days with the situation reaching a crisis on Sunday night when the hospital was forced to open a new ward and to treat adult patients in a paediatric ward, but management stopped shot of declaring a major incident.

Frontline staff at the hospital, which is one of the lead NHS trusts in the capital for treating Covid patients, described ambulances queuing for hours outside A&E with some sick patients travelling to the hospital by taxi after hours waiting for an ambulance.

The hospital sent out several major incident appeals to staff to come in on Sunday and Monday as well as urgent consultants to review patients for discharge as dozens of patients waited for beds to become free.

The Atheist · 30th December 2020, 03:48 PM

This is the side of Covid all the anti-maskers don't think about - the mental stress on medical staff. https://www.propublica.org/article/t...-who-lost-hope

Some army psychologist did a study of mental health among grunts guarding our quarantine facilities and noted the levels of stress and PTSD were the same as they show during active shooty placements.

If that's happening among people whose only responsibility is keeping people in quarantine, what the hell are medics like?

marting · 30th December 2020, 09:37 PM

Hey! An actual RCT for vitamin D in high risk patients.

DISCUSSION: COVIT-TRIAL is to our knowledge the first randomized controlled trial testing the effect of vitamin D supplementation on the prognosis of COVID-19 in high-risk older patients. High-dose vitamin D supplementation may be an effective, well-tolerated, and easily and immediately accessible treatment for COVID-19, the incidence of which increases dramatically and for which there are currently no scientifically validated treatments.

Should know something by June 2021

https://www.docwirenews.com/abstract...trolled-trial/

The Atheist · 31st December 2020, 02:01 AM

Holy crap - results due 18 months in. The lack of co-ordination is mind-boggling.

I hope we learn some lessons from this, because if we end up with a far more deadly pandemic we are truly in the ****.

Darat · 31st December 2020, 06:12 AM

Science bods - is there science behind this:

Originally Posted by GlennB

"Plans to delay giving the second dose of a Covid vaccine to more than 500,000 people who have received the first jab have caused outcry among doctors who say cancelling appointments wastes time, causes confusion among patients and is potentially unethical.

On Wednesday the government announced a change to its Covid vaccination strategy, saying second doses of the newly approved Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine and the previously approved Pfizer/BioNTech jab would now be given up to 12 weeks after the first dose.

The move applies to people scheduled to have their second dose of the Pfizer jab after 4 January, as well as those yet to receive either jab. The government said it hoped the approach would mean as many people as possible soon have some protection against the disease.

However, the announcement caused controversy, with Pfizer and BioNTech warning that two doses of their vaccine were required for maximum protection against Covid and that they did not have evidence that the first dose alone offered protection after three weeks."

Full article

...snip...

At first I thought it might have been a sensible approach but it appears we don’t know the effectiveness of the vaccines after the one dose? (I believe we do for the “Oxford” vaccine.)

Is there solid science behind this?

Darat · 31st December 2020, 06:17 AM

Originally Posted by The Atheist

This is the side of Covid all the anti-maskers don't think about - the mental stress on medical staff. https://www.propublica.org/article/t...-who-lost-hope

Some army psychologist did a study of mental health among grunts guarding our quarantine facilities and noted the levels of stress and PTSD were the same as they show during active shooty placements.

If that's happening among people whose only responsibility is keeping people in quarantine, what the hell are medics like?

And this type of mental illness has a “long tail”, people will be being affected for literally years to come, which of course will put additional stressors into the health system.

So it’s a double whammy - not only do we have to treat “long covid” for many of those recovered from the infection itself, we will have “long covid PTSD” to treat as well.

Filippo Lippi · 31st December 2020, 06:23 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

Science bods - is there science behind this:

At first I thought it might have been a sensible approach but it appears we don’t know the effectiveness of the vaccines after the one dose? (I believe we do for the “Oxford” vaccine.)

Is there solid science behind this?

As posted elsewhere, "only 52% protection from one jab" is being shouted about this proposal, but then there's this countering that.

Aridas · 31st December 2020, 09:51 AM

Deleted

The Atheist · 31st December 2020, 10:08 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

Is there solid science behind this?

Nope.

If it hasn't been tested and verified, it's not science. They're hoping it's right, but when you have a proven 95% efficacy for two doses and no data for one, it's dicing with danger.

Bob001 · 31st December 2020, 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by lionking

My young, fit, athletic son got infected in March on a flight back from LHR to MEL. Amongst other things the virus caused inflammation of his heart. If anyone dares tell me that covid is just a sort of flu, violence may follow.

Can you be sure that it was contracted on the plane, and not somewhere else during the visit to the UK? The airlines have been pretty persuasive about their air-filtering measures, and there doesn't seem to be any evidence that airline crews are getting sick at a higher rate than others.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/new...fe/ar-BB199nfz
https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/o...scn/index.html

23rd December 2020, 10:58 AM	#201
The Atheist The Grammar Tyrant Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 28,306	Strains again... The Poms have discovered the South African strain in UK. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55428953 Little surprise when it's the dominant strain there. Again the suspicion these variants are more contagious.
	__________________ The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.

23rd December 2020, 02:10 PM	#202
Modified Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 6,890	Originally Posted by marting https://github.com/mbevand/covid19-age-stratified-ifr Interesting data set and chart comparing various published estimates of influenza and Covid-19 IFR rates v age. Basically Flu v C19 converges around age 5 and diverges to 2.9 at age 30, 8.5 at age 50 and 13.5 at age 70. C19 includes 13 data sets around the world. Flu is USA CDC sets from the last 7 flu seasons. The exponential fit (above childhood) for both diseases is quite remarkable. For flu there is slight flattening from 30-60, but I would expect it to be much flatter.
Modified Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 6,890

23rd December 2020, 02:57 PM	#203
marting Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 2,143	Originally Posted by Modified The exponential fit (above childhood) for both diseases is quite remarkable. For flu there is slight flattening from 30-60, but I would expect it to be much flatter. Deaths per capita in the age groups are flatter I think but these are IFR estimates based on case rates and about a 50% flu asymptomatic which they apply equally across ages. It's complicated by flu being somewhat endemic and the older you are the more likely you have been previously exposed. So I suspect asymptomatic percentages may be higher for older people as they have been exposed to multiple flu variations in the past. There is a general issue with Covid-19 and what qualifies as symptomatic. There was that interesting study the CDC reported of a summer camp that got infected and it was isolated from the outside through the course of the disease. Attack rate was 91% among those that hadn't previously had Covid-19. About 15% had tested positive for antibodies previously and none were infected. And, remarkably, virtually every infected kid exhibited one or more symptoms. They kept detailed records on each kid in the camp. Very different from the flu. The population is virtually totally naive to covid-19. Fresh meat, as it were.
marting Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 2,143	__________________ Flying's easy. Walking on water, now that's cool.

23rd December 2020, 05:32 PM	#204
The Atheist The Grammar Tyrant Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 28,306	More on the mutated versions: https://www.economist.com/science-an...-transmissible tl;dr - we don't know.
	__________________ The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.

23rd December 2020, 08:08 PM	#205
marting Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 2,143	Covid-19: Evidence is lacking to support vitamin D’s role in treatment and prevention: https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/371/bmj.m4912.full.pdf And the withering rapid responses https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....14.20152728v3 I particularly like this pithy piece: Quote: NICE notes that there are currently four other trial protocols registered world-wide that are addressing this topic: NCT04476680; NCT04483635; NCT04386850; NCT04535791.[5] Of these only two: NCT04386850 in Iran and NCT04535791 in Mexico are placebo-controlled and addressing COVID-19 severity. They are planned to complete in March and July 2021, respectively. If, as currently hoped, the pandemic may be waning by Easter, these trials, if successfully completed, will tell us retrospectively whether or not many lives might have been saved by a stronger promotion of vitamin D supplements that cost pence and are extremely safe. Is that really what evidence-based medicine is meant to be about?
marting Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 2,143	__________________ Flying's easy. Walking on water, now that's cool.

23rd December 2020, 10:44 PM	#206
marting Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 2,143	This study suggests D may be harmful. Vitamin D and Covid-19 Susceptibility and Severity: a Mendelian Randomization Study This is really different. Mendelian randomization? Appears to be correlating Covid-19 outcomes with genes associated with higher 250HD. Not sure about the D but there does seem to be some correlation between the selected genes and Covid-19 outcomes. https://icite.od.nih.gov/covid19/sea...90975.full.pdf Quote: In conclusion, using a method that has consistently replicated RCT results for 25OHD outcomes in large sample sizes, we find no evidence to support a protective role for vitamin D supplementation in Covid-19 outcomes. Our findings also suggest that all ongoing RCTs studying vitamin D supplementation should have mechanisms in place to detect early signs of worsened outcomes, and that public health recommendations should advise more caution about taking 25OHD supplements.
marting Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 2,143	__________________ Flying's easy. Walking on water, now that's cool.

24th December 2020, 02:18 AM	#207
The Atheist The Grammar Tyrant Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 28,306	Originally Posted by marting Covid-19: Evidence is lacking to support vitamin D’s role in treatment and prevention: Best example of hedging their bets I've seen. "We don't have enough evidence, but there is an association, so take it." Originally Posted by marting And the withering rapid responses https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....14.20152728v3 Fairly unequivocal in the end, though: Quote: Vitamin D supplementation was safe and reduced risk of ARI, despite evidence of significant heterogeneity across trials. Protection was associated with administration of daily doses of 400-1000 IU vitamin D for up to 12 months. Originally Posted by marting Mendelian randomization? Isn't that GIGO taken to its extreme? Any time you need to make assumptions at the start I'm deeply suspicious of the conclusion. What pisses me off is that 10 months after the pandemic had been established, we don't have a definitive answer on vitamin D. Even nicotine underwent a clinical trial somewhere (France?), we've had the HCQ trials started and abandoned... the lack of cohesion around testing possible therapeutics is abysmal.
	__________________ The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.

24th December 2020, 07:49 AM	#208
Ulf Nereng Muse Join Date: Sep 2019 Location: Norway Posts: 570	Originally Posted by The Atheist Best example of hedging their bets I've seen. "We don't have enough evidence, but there is an association, so take it." Fairly unequivocal in the end, though: Isn't that GIGO taken to its extreme? Any time you need to make assumptions at the start I'm deeply suspicious of the conclusion. What pisses me off is that 10 months after the pandemic had been established, we don't have a definitive answer on vitamin D. Even nicotine underwent a clinical trial somewhere (France?), we've had the HCQ trials started and abandoned... the lack of cohesion around testing possible therapeutics is abysmal. More than one trial, actually. Still nothing conclusive, though. https://www.vapingpost.com/2020/12/1...inst-covid-19/ The above is apparently to a site that promotes vaping, but it gives a useful update. And on the other hand, an anti-tobacco site has a different viewpoint! lol https://exposetobacco.org/wp-content...Studies_02.pdf

24th December 2020, 09:58 AM	#209
Bob001 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: US of A Posts: 12,635	Originally Posted by marting This study suggests D may be harmful. .... Your link isn't opening for me. But how could vitamin D at a standard RDA dose -- not megadosing -- be harmful? We know it's essential, and low levels are called deficiencies with known negative consequences. Seems like the bottom line with vitamin D and covid is that maintaining a normal level might help, and can't hurt.

24th December 2020, 10:24 AM	#210
The Atheist The Grammar Tyrant Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 28,306	This is interesting: Quote: One mink-associated variant bears the same mutation as the coronavirus variant now spreading rapidly in the United Kingdom https://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...ndemic/617476/ In light of no evidence to the contrary that I can find, it might mean the new strain came from minks. The timing would be right for starters. ____________________________________ There's a fair bit of noise being made about this study and another from UK, suggesting having been infected is a good shield against another infection, but I'm not so sure. Given the short time frame involved, plus the strong likelihood protection wanes over time, a 90% reduction in likelihood of reinfection in a short time-frame doesn't seem to be pandemic-ending.
	__________________ The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.

24th December 2020, 11:12 AM	#211
marting Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 2,143	Originally Posted by Bob001 Your link isn't opening for me. But how could vitamin D at a standard RDA dose -- not megadosing -- be harmful? We know it's essential, and low levels are called deficiencies with known negative consequences. Seems like the bottom line with vitamin D and covid is that maintaining a normal level might help, and can't hurt. Here's a link to the abstract: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....08.20190975v3
marting Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 2,143	__________________ Flying's easy. Walking on water, now that's cool.

24th December 2020, 11:57 AM	#212
marting Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 2,143	Estimated transmissibility and severity of novel SARS-CoV-2 Variant of Concern 202012/01 in England https://cmmid.github.io/topics/covid...in_England.pdf Very nice analysis on 4 possible explanations for increased transmissivity. They have different implications on policy. For instance reduced reproduction time with constant R0 v just increased R0. And, of course, immunity escape. Finally, increased transmission amongst children.
marting Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 2,143	__________________ Flying's easy. Walking on water, now that's cool.

24th December 2020, 12:46 PM	#213
Bob001 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: US of A Posts: 12,635	Originally Posted by marting Here's a link to the abstract: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....08.20190975v3 A key phrase from the abstract: Quote: Further, our results do not apply to individuals with vitamin D deficiency. But the whole point of the discussion is that people with low levels of vitamin D, as might be the case for nursing home residents and some ethnic groups, are apparently more likely to suffer severe covid outcomes, not that excess levels act as preventatives. So the obvious conclusion is that enough vitamin D is good, and too much is not.

24th December 2020, 01:45 PM	#214
The Atheist The Grammar Tyrant Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 28,306	Originally Posted by marting Finally, increased transmission amongst children. That alone would be a huge difference, and it's quite intriguing. I've gotta say, the mutations so far don't give me warm fuzzies about what might happen when we put some serious evolutionary pressure on the virus.
	__________________ The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.

24th December 2020, 02:50 PM	#215
jimbob Uncritical "thinker" Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: UK Posts: 22,803	Originally Posted by The Atheist That alone would be a huge difference, and it's quite intriguing. I've gotta say, the mutations so far don't give me warm fuzzies about what might happen when we put some serious evolutionary pressure on the virus. There is always going to be a selective pressure for increased infectivity.
	__________________ OECD healthcare spending Expenditure on healthcare http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm link is 2015 data (2013 Data below): UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending

24th December 2020, 02:59 PM	#216
marting Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 2,143	Originally Posted by Bob001 A key phrase from the abstract: But the whole point of the discussion is that people with low levels of vitamin D, as might be the case for nursing home residents and some ethnic groups, are apparently more likely to suffer severe covid outcomes, not that excess levels act as preventatives. So the obvious conclusion is that enough vitamin D is good, and too much is not. The basic problem with the study's extrapolation to Mendelian Randomization is that the latter predicts relatively small variation in D levels. By far the largest population variation is due to lack of sunlight's uV and to a lesser degree diet. And IU 400 D supplements don't raise D levels much. Which is why this letter came out: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...301197338.html
marting Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 2,143	__________________ Flying's easy. Walking on water, now that's cool.

24th December 2020, 04:47 PM	#217
The Atheist The Grammar Tyrant Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 28,306	Originally Posted by jimbob There is always going to be a selective pressure for increased infectivity. Infectivity's largely irrelevant - it's increased virulence that would make it a much bigger problem.
	__________________ The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.

24th December 2020, 10:43 PM	#218
marting Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 2,143	Mathematical analysis of Córdoba calcifediol trial suggests strong role for Vitamin D in reducing ICU admissions of hospitalized COVID-19 patients https://icite.od.nih.gov/covid19/sea...11.08.20222638 Abstract: Quote: A randomized controlled trial of calcifediol (25-hydroxyvitamin D3) as a treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients in Córdoba, Spain, found that the treatment was associated with reduced ICU admissions with very large effect size and high statistical significance, but the study has had limited impact because it had only 76 patients and imperfect blinding, and did not measure vitamin D levels pre- and post-treatment or adjust for several comorbidities. Here we reanalyze the reported results of the study using rigorous and well established statistical techniques, and find that the randomization, large effect size, and high statistical significance address many of these concerns. We show that random assignment of patients to treatment and control groups is highly unlikely to distribute comorbidities or other prognostic indicators sufficiently unevenly to account for the large effect size. We also show that imperfect blinding would need to have had an implausibly large effect to account for the reported results. Finally, comparison with two additional randomized clinical trials of vitamin D supplementation for COVID-19 in India and Brazil indicates that early intervention and rapid absorption may be crucial for the observed benefits of vitamin D. We conclude that the Córdoba study provides sufficient evidence to warrant immediate, well-designed pivotal clinical trials of early calcifediol administration in a broader cohort of inpatients and outpatients with COVID-19.
marting Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 2,143	__________________ Flying's easy. Walking on water, now that's cool.

25th December 2020, 01:41 AM	#219
The Atheist The Grammar Tyrant Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 28,306	Originally Posted by marting Mathematical analysis of Córdoba calcifediol trial suggests strong role for Vitamin D in reducing ICU admissions of hospitalized COVID-19 patients We had that a while back. While the results look good, I'd be the first to note it's a very small number. __________________ Meanwhile, "new" variant #3 in Nigeria, which is undergoing a surge right now. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/...ria-africa-cdc
	__________________ The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.

25th December 2020, 08:01 AM	#220
marting Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 2,143	Originally Posted by The Atheist We had that a while back. While the results look good, I'd be the first to note it's a very small number. The smallness of the study is offset by a compelling, small p value. We had reported the study this report referred to but this one is only a few days old. The original report has been widely ignored for various issues. This one out of MIT, looks at these issues from a detailed statistical POV analyzing how much they could have altered the results. It concludes the study is, in fact, compelling.
marting Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 2,143	__________________ Flying's easy. Walking on water, now that's cool.

25th December 2020, 11:42 AM	#221
The Atheist The Grammar Tyrant Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 28,306	Originally Posted by marting It concludes the study is, in fact, compelling. As you know, I've been promoting D since almost the start, so I'm a fan of the study. Just the numbers bother me - small samples skew too easily and all the post-hoc analysis can't change that possibility. It yet again emphasises the "why the **** haven't we got large, randomised, double-blinded trials on the damned stuff?"
	__________________ The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.

25th December 2020, 02:50 PM	#222
marting Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 2,143	Originally Posted by The Atheist As you know, I've been promoting D since almost the start, so I'm a fan of the study. Just the numbers bother me - small samples skew too easily and all the post-hoc analysis can't change that possibility. It yet again emphasises the "why the **** haven't we got large, randomised, double-blinded trials on the damned stuff?" The problem with small sample sized trials is that the "p" value is going to be pretty big unless there is a large difference in outcomes. For instance testing whether a coin is fair or not. Take two coins. Coin A, by design, has heads probability of .55 while coin B has a heads probability of .9. Flipping each coin 50 times is going to give a high p value (over .05) against the hypothesis that the coin is not fair for coin A while it will be extremely small (under .01), hence "statistically significant" that coin B is not fair. It's more important that the sample size be large when one is interested is detecting smaller effects. This study has such large effects, even with a small N, that it becomes compelling evidence of Vit. D efficacy. The MIT folks addressed the major reasons the study has been largely ignored. There are remaining issues. Possibility of fraud, or some other confounder not addressed. I'm a bit skeptical generally of studies that come in with P values around .05. Selection bias is a real issue. How many RCT's are registered v reported at conclusion? Observationals are worse. Not so much fraud as wishful thinking. Just look at the HCQ insanity. And then the antipathy for HCQ (likely because of the DJT hype) produced a whiplash and Nature published a crap "peer reviewed" piece that aligned with existing beliefs and perhaps especially, because it went against DJT. Very understandable and human. There's something similar in the areas of vitamins, herbs, and such. And I think for good reason. Long history of charlatans makes one skeptical. But one still has to look at evidence and it does pop up from time to time. Worse in the soft sciences.
marting Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 2,143	__________________ Flying's easy. Walking on water, now that's cool.

25th December 2020, 05:17 PM	#223
The Atheist The Grammar Tyrant Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 28,306	Originally Posted by marting Worse in the soft sciences. Amen on that, brother! I am not a fan.
	__________________ The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.

27th December 2020, 04:41 AM	#224
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Yokohama, Japan Posts: 25,743	COVID-19 clampdown: Japan closes borders to foreign nationals Quote: Borders are continuing to tighten around the world as governments respond to the threat of a new, more contagious strain of the coronavirus. Effective on Monday, Dec. 28, the Japanese government will bar most foreign nationals in an effort to curb the spread of the virus. Entry bans were already in place for international travelers from more than 150 countries all over the world, including the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom. The latest move, which will last until at least the end of January, simply builds upon the nation’s already strict entry requirements, and even Japanese nationals and foreigners with residency returning from short business trips, according to Bloomberg, must now comply with a 14-day quarantine, along with multiple COVID-19 tests. The list of countries includes the US and Canada, as well as most European countries. Quote: Japan, once a glowing example of successful pandemic control, is now experiencing its highest-ever number of COVID-19 cases. And the highly infectious coronavirus variant has already been confirmed in Japan. In Tokyo, nearly 950 new cases were recorded on Saturday — a grim record for the island nation. It’s a discouraging turn for Japan, which was widely reported to be planning to welcome back international travelers in the spring in preparation for the rescheduled Summer Olympics. Countries around the world have turned to new border restrictions, increased testing and enhanced screening measures in a last-ditch effort to contain the new coronavirus strain, which was first identified in England in September. In the U.S., travelers from the U.K. must now provide a negative COVID-19 test result taken within 72 hours before departure. But experts fear the precautions may be far too late. In addition to Japan, Bloomberg reported that the new strain — which is thought to be 70% more transmissible — has already been reported in France, Switzerland, Germany, Ireland and Sweden, among others. I guess they are worried about this so-called new strain. 70% more transmissible, supposedly. But even the original strain is already on the rise here again. My understanding is that is has been found in Japan, but only in returning travelers during their quarantine period. So it's not exactly here yet, as in not spreading in the community yet. The official page: https://www.mofa.go.jp/ca/fna/page4e_001053.html
	__________________ A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool. William Shakespeare

27th December 2020, 10:33 AM	#225
The Atheist The Grammar Tyrant Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 28,306	Originally Posted by Puppycow COVID-19 clampdown: Japan closes borders to foreign nationals Yeah, your numbers are going the wrong way. I'd say July Olympics are still in the balance. Meanwhile, a couple of interesting pieces on long Covid: https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ed-new-clinics https://www.theguardian.com/society/...ter-five-weeks Some pretty ugly numbers there, too. They'd be a very good reason to be more careful not to let it spread... ...if most places hadn't missed that point already.
	__________________ The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.

27th December 2020, 12:23 PM	#226
Dr.Sid Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Olomouc, Czech Republic Posts: 3,172	Christmas will have dire consequences around here .. so far the numbers are dropping, because of the holiday .. but so many people from my social bubble got it just now (and their moms, literally). Next week numbers are not going to be pretty.

27th December 2020, 12:44 PM	#227
marting Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 2,143	1 of every 17 people in the U.S. has been infected, and 1 in 1,000 has died. Yet the worst may lie ahead. I was appalled reading this New York Times story. Published in MSN (no paywall) as well. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/27/u...lie-ahead.html They said: "Still, U.S. case numbers are about as high as they have ever been. Total infections surpassed 19 million on Saturday" They conflate cumulative cases with cumulative infections. And then they point out that 1 in 1000 have died. But 1 in 17? It's just wrong. If it weren't it implies the IFR is 1.7%. According to the CDC, many more have been infected than 1 in 17. The reality is that most Covid-19 infections are never diagnosed and reported. Undiagnosed cases were likely 10x in the early days of Spring when testing was limited. CDC estimates were 1 in 7 in Sept. Now it's down to maybe 1 in 5. So the IFR is maybe .3%. However, since April, about twice as many younger people were infected than older people and they have far fewer deaths so likely the IFR is around .5. And while I'm at it, what does "Still, U.S. case numbers are about as high as they have ever been. Total infections surpassed 19 million on Saturday" even mean? Reported cases are cumulative. By definition, US Cases are always as high as they've ever been. What an awful story.
marting Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 2,143	__________________ Flying's easy. Walking on water, now that's cool. Last edited by marting; 27th December 2020 at 12:50 PM.

29th December 2020, 11:40 PM	#228
marting Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 2,143	Efficacy and Safety of Ivermectin for Treatment and prophylaxis of COVID-19 Pandemic Preprint of an RCT on Ivermectin v HCQ (standard of care in Egypt) on 200 mild/moderate and 200 severe covid-19 patients. Also 200 health care workers to detect prophylactic effect. Very strong, positive impact on all 3 IVM groups. p < .001 https://icite.od.nih.gov/covid19/sea...manuscript.pdf
marting Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 2,143	__________________ Flying's easy. Walking on water, now that's cool.

30th December 2020, 12:53 AM	#229
Planigale Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: 49 North Posts: 4,640	Originally Posted by The Atheist Yeah, your numbers are going the wrong way. I'd say July Olympics are still in the balance. Meanwhile, a couple of interesting pieces on long Covid: https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ed-new-clinics https://www.theguardian.com/society/...ter-five-weeks Some pretty ugly numbers there, too. They'd be a very good reason to be more careful not to let it spread... ...if most places hadn't missed that point already. The problem is people think they will get better far quicker than is reality. I link below to information about bacterial pneumonia. Most people will still have symptoms 3 months after pneumonia and it takes six months for most people to have completely recovered. Most people creating the concept of long covid are not people who have experience of looking after people who have had a serious infection. Only yesterday I had an unpleasant discussion with the son of a patient who was in hospital with pneumonia (not covid) last month. He was saying that she was sent home too soon, she is still tired and in pain (pleurisy). I went through how long it takes for the body to heal - his response was they were told all that when she left hospital last month, so why was I just repeating things they had been told. I did not say the last place to leave your elderly mother is in hospital at the moment. https://www.blf.org.uk/support-for-y...monia/recovery

30th December 2020, 01:16 AM	#230
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 46,990	Originally Posted by Planigale The problem is people think they will get better far quicker than is reality. I link below to information about bacterial pneumonia. Most people will still have symptoms 3 months after pneumonia and it takes six months for most people to have completely recovered. Most people creating the concept of long covid are not people who have experience of looking after people who have had a serious infection. Only yesterday I had an unpleasant discussion with the son of a patient who was in hospital with pneumonia (not covid) last month. He was saying that she was sent home too soon, she is still tired and in pain (pleurisy). I went through how long it takes for the body to heal - his response was they were told all that when she left hospital last month, so why was I just repeating things they had been told. I did not say the last place to leave your elderly mother is in hospital at the moment. https://www.blf.org.uk/support-for-y...monia/recovery My young, fit, athletic son got infected in March on a flight back from LHR to MEL. Amongst other things the virus caused inflammation of his heart. If anyone dares tell me that covid is just a sort of flu, violence may follow.
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

30th December 2020, 06:24 AM	#231
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 97,021	Looks like the dominoes are going to start to topple in NHS England after lockdowns came too late: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/h...-b1780338.html Quote: Patients at one of London's busiest hospitals have been forced to wait more than 24 hours for a bed as A&E doctors and nurses — said to be at 'breaking point' — urged bosses to declare a major incident. The number of coronavirus patients at The Royal London Hospital, in Whitechapel, has increased by 200 in a matter of days with the situation reaching a crisis on Sunday night when the hospital was forced to open a new ward and to treat adult patients in a paediatric ward, but management stopped shot of declaring a major incident. Frontline staff at the hospital, which is one of the lead NHS trusts in the capital for treating Covid patients, described ambulances queuing for hours outside A&E with some sick patients travelling to the hospital by taxi after hours waiting for an ambulance. The hospital sent out several major incident appeals to staff to come in on Sunday and Monday as well as urgent consultants to review patients for discharge as dozens of patients waited for beds to become free.
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

30th December 2020, 03:48 PM	#232
The Atheist The Grammar Tyrant Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 28,306	This is the side of Covid all the anti-maskers don't think about - the mental stress on medical staff. https://www.propublica.org/article/t...-who-lost-hope Some army psychologist did a study of mental health among grunts guarding our quarantine facilities and noted the levels of stress and PTSD were the same as they show during active shooty placements. If that's happening among people whose only responsibility is keeping people in quarantine, what the hell are medics like?
	__________________ The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.

30th December 2020, 09:37 PM	#233
marting Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 2,143	Hey! An actual RCT for vitamin D in high risk patients. DISCUSSION: COVIT-TRIAL is to our knowledge the first randomized controlled trial testing the effect of vitamin D supplementation on the prognosis of COVID-19 in high-risk older patients. High-dose vitamin D supplementation may be an effective, well-tolerated, and easily and immediately accessible treatment for COVID-19, the incidence of which increases dramatically and for which there are currently no scientifically validated treatments. Should know something by June 2021 https://www.docwirenews.com/abstract...trolled-trial/
marting Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 2,143	__________________ Flying's easy. Walking on water, now that's cool.

31st December 2020, 02:01 AM	#234
The Atheist The Grammar Tyrant Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 28,306	Holy crap - results due 18 months in. The lack of co-ordination is mind-boggling. I hope we learn some lessons from this, because if we end up with a far more deadly pandemic we are truly in the ****.
	__________________ The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.

31st December 2020, 06:12 AM	#235
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 97,021	Science bods - is there science behind this: Originally Posted by GlennB "Plans to delay giving the second dose of a Covid vaccine to more than 500,000 people who have received the first jab have caused outcry among doctors who say cancelling appointments wastes time, causes confusion among patients and is potentially unethical. On Wednesday the government announced a change to its Covid vaccination strategy, saying second doses of the newly approved Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine and the previously approved Pfizer/BioNTech jab would now be given up to 12 weeks after the first dose. The move applies to people scheduled to have their second dose of the Pfizer jab after 4 January, as well as those yet to receive either jab. The government said it hoped the approach would mean as many people as possible soon have some protection against the disease. However, the announcement caused controversy, with Pfizer and BioNTech warning that two doses of their vaccine were required for maximum protection against Covid and that they did not have evidence that the first dose alone offered protection after three weeks." Full article ...snip... At first I thought it might have been a sensible approach but it appears we don’t know the effectiveness of the vaccines after the one dose? (I believe we do for the “Oxford” vaccine.) Is there solid science behind this?
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you