Corona Virus 2019-nCoV

exchemist said:
What benefits are there from hydroxychloroquine? There were some hyped, uncontrolled reports from France, but I am not aware of any substantiation of benefits from it. It is not recommended for Covid 19, not because of politics, but because of a lack of efficacy, so far as I can see.

I’m pleased to see you’ve given up with the bat mites, by the way. :D
Click to expand...

Troll
 
LaurieAG said:
I think the worst thing about the whole pandemic is the politicisation of medicine by both sides.

Just take Hydroxychloroquin for example. This is a drug that has been in use for around 60 years, the dangers of it are well known and the benefits with regards to Covid 19 recovery rates are increasingly becoming known yet people complain that the results aren't valid with respect to Covid 19 because they didn't test it on people who they already know will die from it.

While Trumps positive spin helped things get out of control in the US is it justified, in any way apart from raw amoral political ends justifying the means, to deny medicines that can reduce the pressure on your medical system and the people operating it just to make things worse, blame it all on Trump, and maybe win an election?

I case you haven't noticed positive political spin and straw men arguments are inherent aspects of all political parties and Covid 19 doesn't care one hoot about either.
Click to expand...
they literally stopped a test cause to many people were dying from it
 
LaurieAG said:
And people who insist that medicines are tested on people, who they already know will suffer from taking that medicine, don't?
Click to expand...
Don't what - don't don't care? Don't not care? Don't not think like Trump? Don't think like Trump?

Who are you talking about, and what are you trying to say about them?
 
Back to the science

there was some questions around this issue of asymptomatic people and how contagious they are
viral loading etc etc

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-53665008
People with symptomless Covid-19 can carry as much of the virus as those with symptoms, a South Korean study has suggested.

South Korea was able to identify and isolate asymptomatic cases through mass testing as early as the start of March.

There is mounting evidence these cases represent a considerable proportion of coronavirus infections.

But the researchers weren't able to say how much these people actually passed the virus on.

People with a positive coronavirus test were monitored in a community treatment centre, allowing scientists to look at how much of the virus was detectable in their nose and throat swabs.

They were given regular tests, and only released once they were negative.

Results of 1,886 tests suggest people with no symptoms at the time of the test, including those who never go on to develop symptoms, have the same amount of viral material in their nose and throat as people with symptoms.

The study also showed the virus could be detected in asymptomatic people for significant periods of time - although they appeared to clear it from their systems slightly faster than people with symptoms.

The median time (the number where half of cases were higher and half were lower) from being diagnosed to receiving a negative test was 17 days in asymptomatic patients and 19.5 days in symptomatic patients.

Because of the nature of the isolation centre, the study didn't include people with severe cases of the disease. They were also younger and healthier than average.
Click to expand...

Most coronavirus testing, including in the UK, focuses on people with symptoms, so there is little data on asymptomatic cases.
Click to expand...
 
The Melbourne, Australia Situation:
Lock down level 4
8pm-5am Curfew
Mask wearing is mandatory.
Borders closed.

There is some deviation from expectations that may be worth a mention.
Today it was reported that we had 466 new Confirmed cases over last 24 hours, which in itself is concerning, however of those cases 140 (30.04%) are health care workers.
There has been a steady rise in the rate of infection among health care workers since the so called second wave outbreak.
For back ground article see: https://www.theguardian.com/austral...workers-have-covid-19-after-daily-rise-of-101
07/Aug/2020
There are now 911 healthcare workers with active infections of Covid-19 in Victoria, a rise of 101 since Thursday. Hospitals are already under pressure as nurses are diverted to tackle the crisis in aged care homes and 607 people in the state’s hospitals with the virus. Victoria’s chief health officer, Prof Brett Sutton, said on Friday it was “a very concerning number, it is a very big number” that was placing “stresses and strains on staffing”. “In our hospital system, nurses are more represented in these healthcare workers numbers than doctors,” he said. “The number of doctors is much less. That, I think, relates to the closeness of interaction that nurses are engaged in with their care provision. But I think a lot of the numbers in healthcare workers are actually aged care workers and some of the ancillary staff in healthcare.”​

There is reason to believe that the Quarantine PPE provisioning currently in use in hospitals and ICU units is inadequate and that the Virus transmission is getting pass the high level PPE being utilized. Certainly there is strong indication that PPE use in assisted care facilities such as nursing homes and other residential care situations that PPE use is problematic due to inadequate training and ineffective rating.

For a small nation of only 26 million, the loss of health professionals either to quarantine isolation or hospitalization at this rate is actually very concerning.

It could be speculated that the virus has changed and become more contagious and more easily transmitted since first appearing here in January 2020.

Detailed stats need to be researched, if possible, before making solid conclusions but there is enough info to raise suspicions that the virus is no longer containable using the current PPE regime.
If the current rate of 30% of case load continues for much longer a health system crisis will ensue.

I am unsure how this applies to other nations around the globe but I would assume that the problem of inadequate PPE (rating) will become more evident in the not too distant future...
 
Last edited:
https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/07/hydro-treatment-study
https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/26218/

Can anybody post a link to any paper that says Hydroxychloroquine causes deaths but actually has a list of the statistics that were excluded because we already know it causes problems in certain people? i.e. not just a statistical exercise with no medical discretion.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7280684/
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext

These are the exclusions used in a trial begun in 2012 by the Washington University School of Medicine , "the study is to randomize otherwise healthy subjects with type 2 diabetes to hydroxychloroquine".

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02026232
Exclusion Criteria:
  • Prior treatment with chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine as follows:
    1. any exposure in the past 2 years,
    2. >30 days of therapy if exposure was between 2 and 5 years ago,
    3. >90 days of therapy if exposure was between 5 and 10 years ago,
    4. >6 months of therapy if exposure was 10 to 20 years ago,
    5. >1 year of therapy if exposure was 20 to 30 years ago,
    6. No limit if last exposure was >30 years ago, e.g. during the Vietnam conflict.
  • Morbid obesity (BMI >45)
  • Coronary artery disease or other vascular disease
  • History of stroke
  • Serum creatinine >-4 mg/dl for women and >-5 mg/dl for men.
  • Seizure disorder
  • History of psoriasis
  • Hematologic disorders, including anemia (WHO criteria for anemia:hemoglobin <13g/dL in men and <12 g/dL in women)
  • Current malignancy or active treatment for recurrence prevention,e.g. tamoxifen. Cancer considered to be cured, either as a result of surgery or other treatment is not exclusionary.
  • Asthma requiring daily beta agonist therapy or intermittent oral steroids is exclusionary. Inhaled steroids are acceptable. Obstructive sleep apnea will be allowed if continuous positive airway pressure(CPAP) or other therapy has been stable for 6 months. Other active respiratory diseases are excluded.
  • Treatment with 50mg or greater of Metoprolol or treatment with digoxin
  • Liver disease, or Liver Function Test >2 times normal
  • Active infection (including HIV)
  • Serious illness requiring ongoing medical care or medication
  • Treatment with atypical anti-psychotic medication. Treatment with any other medication for psychiatric illness, unless on a stable dose for 6 weeks prior to enrollment. Patients with unstable psychiatric disorders are excluded per the decision of the study MD regardless of medication history.
  • Taking any of the following lipid lowering medications: niacin, fibrates, and greater than 1 gm/day of fish oils
  • Uncontrolled hypertension (BP >150/90 mm Hg) at enrollment
  • Need for daily Over The Counter medications, or currently taking cimetidine or >1000 IU vitamin E daily and unwilling to reduce or discontinue vitamin E or discontinue cimetidine for the duration of the study. Patients taking more than 1000 IU vitamin E daily should reduce or discontinue the vitamin for 30 days before randomization.
  • Pregnant or lactating women, or women intending to become pregnant
  • Women not using adequate birth control (hormonal birth control is acceptable, also double barrier)
  • QT corrected >450 msec on screening ECG
  • Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency
Click to expand...
 
LaurieAG said:
https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/07/hydro-treatment-study
https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/26218/

Can anybody post a link to any paper that says Hydroxychloroquine causes deaths but actually has a list of the statistics that were excluded because we already know it causes problems in certain people? i.e. not just a statistical exercise with no medical discretion.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7280684/
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext

These are the exclusions used in a trial begun in 2012 by the Washington University School of Medicine , "the study is to randomize otherwise healthy subjects with type 2 diabetes to hydroxychloroquine".

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02026232
Click to expand...
Are you defending your president; not one elected by the people but by electoral college?
 
Laurie, im not fussed that you choose to support the current political family

however, your flaming a science thread with conspiracy language and discussion
your attempt to bait a question to argue conspiracy stuff is quite rude and offensive to the millions with covid 19 and disrespectful to the hundreds of thousands of dead
and is a slap in the face of modern science and all the scientific specialist whom dedicate their entire lifes, some of which have given their lives, fighting it.

LaurieAG said:
Can anybody post a link to any paper that says Hydroxychloroquine causes deaths but actually has a list of the statistics that were excluded because we already know it causes problems in certain people? i.e. not just a statistical exercise with no medical discretion.
Click to expand...

if you wish to talk science
talk science
dont bait with conspiracy double back talk nonsense baiting questions.

your double talk splainer on the end doesn't validate your conspiracy question asking for facts that you have not detailed

perhaps you need to re think your question and pose it like you would to a doctor so you may talk logic and facts and get a sensible answer
IF that is what you wish(i assume)

there is a distinct theme to your post of
gaming the subject to twist it into a conspiracy debate
if that is not clearly your intention i suggest you re think your questions
 
Last edited:
LaurieAG said:
Can anybody post a link to any paper that says Hydroxychloroquine causes deaths but actually has a list of the statistics that were excluded because we already know it causes problems in certain people? i.e. not just a statistical exercise with no medical discretion.
Click to expand...
Not sure what you are asking for. If you are saying "it's an invalid test unless you exclude unhealthy people" that doesn't make much sense. If you exclude unhealthy people and give everyone who remains distilled water, then they will survive more often, because they are healthier to begin with. Does that prove that distilled water is a cure?

Here's a good summary of several tests that have already been done:

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticl...zgw-N-g2g52NHFHRJ0tHUZlIek9D0kswIwlreKqY2XRkw
 
sculptor said:
general
Click to expand...
i have listened to several doctors theorise about people whom work in dangerous air pollution exposure zones possibly having a tiny bit of extra protection by being a smoker
it is simple logic to them

lets see the conversation discuss the same epidemiology around (added to diet/ soda candy etc)processed sugar & body fat % levels .
thats what interested in

gaining a clear picture of the self medicated protection via
obesity
recreational drug use
nutrition
is the key
but many do not wish to openly discuss such things because too many are making billions from it
changing how people spend is considered communist to USA TV viewer audiences

example

all the coal miners in the usa
do their insurance companys(or employers) discriminate against them exploitatively by making them pay higher premiums if they are smokers ?
 
Last edited:
sculptor said:
another wrinkle?

current smokers have a very much lower probability of developing symptomatic or severe SARS-CoV-2 infection as compared to the general population.

https://theconversation.com/does-nicotine-protect-us-against-coronavirus-137488

https://www.qeios.com/read/WPP19W.3

grain of salt
Click to expand...
I read somewhere it was about 8% reduction in transmission, however a significant chance % of fatality if the smoker is unlucky enough to become infected due to existing smoker related health conditions.

One hypothesis I found was that the nicotine may not be directly implicated. It appears that the smoker's have a certain calmness due to long term exposure to breathing issues that lowers breathing anxiety. This in turn reduces the transmission by making the respiratory tracts less vulnerable. ( Desensitized nose, throat, trachea, lungs due to smoke over extended time )

Just a hypothesis....
 
Quantum Quack said:
smoker related health conditions
Click to expand...

red meat eater related health conditions
RE cancer
bowl & stomach
https://www.wcrf.org/int/blog/articles/2015/10/red-meat-and-bowel-cancer-risk-how-strong-evidence

Red meat and bowel cancer risk – how strong is the evidence?
Dr Rachel Thompson

23 October 2015 | Cancer prevention, Cancer research
The topic of red meat and cancer risk often makes the headlines. With the results of the International Agency for Research on Cancer evaluation on red and processed meat due to be published shortly this seems a good opportunity to explain the science behind World Cancer Research Fund’s recommendation on red and processed meat.


Our current advice to limit the consumption of red meat and avoid processed meat is based on an Expert Panel’s scientific evaluation for the 2007 Expert Report Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity and the Prevention of Cancer: a Global Perspective. Since then a further evaluation has been undertaken as part of the Continuous Update Project, an analysis of global scientific research into the link between diet, physical activity, weight and cancer.

What is red meat?
Red meat includes beef, pork, lamb and goat – foods like hamburgers, minced beef, pork chops and roast lamb. We don’t have enough evidence yet about other red-coloured meats, like duck and venison.

What is processed meat?
Processed meat is meat that has been preserved by smoking, curing or salting, or by the addition of preservatives. Examples include ham, bacon, pastrami and salami, as well as hot dogs and some sausages. Hamburgers and minced meats only count as processed meat if they have been preserved with salt or chemical additives.

The evidence for bowel cancer
In 2011 a report from the Continuous Update Project was published. It found strong evidence that eating red meat or processed meat increases the risk of bowel cancer. The analysis of eight cohort studies showed a 17 per cent increased risk per 100g red meat per day (RR: 1.17 (1.05-1.31)). The analysis of nine cohort studies found strong evidence that eating processed meat increases the risk of bowel cancer by 18 per cent per 50g processed meat per day (RR 1.18 (1.10-1.28)). For both analyses the results of the individual studies were generally consistent – adding strength to the association. A judgement of strong evidence also requires plausible mechanisms. There are several potential reasons to explain how red and processed meat may cause bowel cancer. Red meat contains a compound which gives it’s red colour, haem, which promotes the formation of potentially carcinogenic N-nitroso compounds. In addition when red meat is cooked at high temperatures, this results in the production of compounds (heterocyclic amines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) that can cause bowel cancer in people with a genetic predisposition. In addition processed red meat has nitrites, as well as nitrates added to it as preservatives and these are thought to cause cancer. Processing also changes the nature of the meat, which may play a role in its link to cancer.

Does eating red and processed meat affect other cancers?
Currently there is no strong evidence that eating red or processed meat increases the risk of other cancers. The Continuous Update Project publishes reports on updated reviews of evidence so that any changes in the evidence can be reflected in our Cancer Prevention Recommendations.
Click to expand...

Quantum Quack said:
I read somewhere it was about 8% reduction in transmission,
Click to expand...
as long as the margin of error is below 2% then that is a potential finding

what would be highly valuable would be transmission rates between people whom use a steam room once a week or more
but many would argue that its not a general enough group
like saying "skinny people problems" while discussing self esteem of fat people

real life
i just finished cleaning out the fine paper filter of my vacuum cleaner
which had got clogged with dust because someone whom borrowed it accidentally or recklessly discarded the primary mesh filter when they emptied the bag attempting to fool me into not knowing they borrowed it(not malice)

the quantity of dust i have inhaled is probably equal to smoking a packet of cigarettes
my allergies will go off the chart in the next few hours, and i will have a low grade migraine headache for maybe up to 5 hours, maybe 15 hours
while my body fights the toxins it will undermine other parts of my biological system which i will be trying to mitigate and support along the way
my immune system
respiratory system
neural system
heart and blood system and stomach are all effected
i will be actively balancing this over the next 12 hours to try and maintain peak performance at any required level(hopefully level very ordinary)

people breath diesel engine fumes which gives them A.I.D's
then act all weird about body size issues related to health and fitness and ego concepts

changing how the public act is very very hard
there are so many different aspects at play and a vast plethora of deliberate miss information
 
Last edited:
I don't think that any medical decision made by any medical professional during the pandemic was due to political endorsement.

I do believe that many medical professionals, when faced with an onslaught of patients that overwhelmed their medical facilities and their peers on the front line, were willing to try anything if it could assist them.

At one time a warning went out about ibuprofen being a dangerous drug to use but that warning was retracted when it was realised that they already knew that people who have high blood pressure etc had problems with it and shouldn't take it.

There is a genuine scientific opportunity to analyse the data collected so far to work out who shouldn't be given hydroxychloroquine so that minimal harm can be done for maximum social benefit and those medical professionals and their peers in the firing line today can have the proper proven tools at hand to allow them to do their jobs in their time of need.
 
LaurieAG said:
Can anybody post a link to any paper that says Hydroxychloroquine causes deaths but actually has a list of the statistics that were excluded because we already know it causes problems in certain people? i.e. not just a statistical exercise with no medical discretion.
Click to expand...
The Wiki link in post 2052 includes several references to side effects of that drug, which are serious. The drug has been used for years to treat malaria and a couple of other conditions, so the risks of these side effects are well known - and some of them are potentially lethal.

It's standard practice to screen people for vulnerabilities to known side effects before giving them that or any drug. It is also standard practice to monitor patients receiving such drugs very closely.

I'm not sure what you are talking about in reference to "excluded statistics", but I hope nobody is going to randomly set people up to get killed by that drug just to get solid numbers on what percentage of them will actually die.
 
LaurieAG said:
There is a genuine scientific opportunity to analyse the data collected so far to work out who shouldn't be given hydroxychloroquine so that minimal harm can be done for maximum social benefit and those medical professionals and their peers in the firing line today can have the proper proven tools at hand to allow them to do their jobs in their time of need.
Click to expand...
Agreed. And now we know that HCQ does not help, and increases risk of death.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top