March Madness and Covid-19

Status
Not open for further replies.
coolm said:
if true? iceland and the cruise ship were most definitely "true" and they were 50%. our numbers are seriously skewed because while THEY did a whole cross-section WE only tested select people who met certain symptom patterns. we'd have been better off just making sure our hospital admission standards and counts were accurate and steady. at least then our graph would match.
Click to expand...

If that study is accurate. Then the asymptotic rate is closer to 80-90% or higher
 
https://apnews.com/a5077c7227b8eb8b0dc23423c0bbe2b2

Looks like my skepticism was correct. Barring some wild error in this preliminary study, this pretty much puts the nail in the coffin of hydroxychloroquine. It was foolish to put so many resources into this unproven drug. We should have been focused on antivirals.

Also, I can’t believe that some people still think this is barely worse than the common cold. We are going to be very close to 50,000 deaths by the end of this week. I’m predicting a new big spike in cases as people are out physically spending their relief checks and not taking this seriously. It’s insane to me that the governor of Georgia is about to open gyms, tattoo parlors, hair salons etc. Southwest Georgia is an emerging hotspot, opening up the state as cases are exploding there is irresponsible and frankly, stupid. There are 6 million people in the Atlanta metro area. I just don’t understand it.

Anyway, I’ve got to get back to work. I’ve been on lunch break. We are processing lots of specimens from the drive through Covid-19 collections sites. Stay safe everyone.
 
There is a bit of a false reality out there concerning the virus and tradeoffs if we open. Lockdowns will suppress infections and death in the short term. The "flattening of the curve" has been successful, however over time, it still doesn't decrease the area under the curve. The idea of staying home until we have a vaccine is now becoming a talking point unfortunately.....because we don't know if/when that will ever happen.

Same goes with widespread testing and contact tracing. Some people who are suggesting that if we scale up testing, then this will somehow stop people from getting the virus .....is well, short-sighted. It will possibly prevent hot spots and overwhelming the health care system for a little while longer, but people will still get infected over a prolonged period of time.

We are going to have to make some tough decisions. Do we incrementally open things up and expose people to the virus (let nature take its course)? Will this exposure lead to more deaths?...yes, of course. But does this strategy also account for the population to build up antibodies?...I believe so. Whatever happens, there will continue to be finger-pointing and hindsight. People are going to die from the virus and people are going to die from the social upheaval/health devastation from economic insecurity. I have no idea what the delicate balance is between public health and social disruption. I would hate to be the person(s) having to make that decision.
 
steverocks35 said:
https://apnews.com/a5077c7227b8eb8b0dc23423c0bbe2b2

Looks like my skepticism was correct. Barring some wild error in this preliminary study, this pretty much puts the nail in the coffin of hydroxychloroquine. It was foolish to put so many resources into this unproven drug. We should have been focused on antivirals.
Click to expand...

Hydroxychloroquine is one of the many antivirals that was being studied. Early results showed it may be beneficial. Further studies have cast doubt on that.
 
Eielson said:
Hydroxychloroquine is one of the many antivirals that was being studied. Early results showed it may be beneficial. Further studies have cast doubt on that.
Click to expand...

We're splitting hairs here, but it's an anti-malarial. As you know, malaria is caused by a protozoa, not a virus. And it's been trialed for use against other viral diseases such as Ebola and H1N1 and was found to be ineffective against those as well, which is why I was skeptical from the beginning.
 
We have flattened the curve. We need to open up parts of the country and use common sense while jump starting the economy. We can’t possibly keep everyone isolated until a vaccine is available. That’s untenable. What happens if we never get a vaccine? We all just stay inside? No.

It’s very likely there will be several waves of the virus. We shelter in place forever? We must get back to work. We can social distance and use common sense, as I’ve said before, while we get back to work.
 
steverocks35 said:
We're splitting hairs here, but it's an anti-malarial. As you know, malaria is caused by a protozoa, not a virus. And it's been trialed for use against other viral diseases such as Ebola and H1N1 and was found to be ineffective against those as well, which is why I was skeptical from the beginning.
Click to expand...

Sure, it's antimalarial. It's also antiviral and an immunosuppressant. There have been other antivirals used, but none have been shown to be more effective than hydroxychloroquine at this point. The tide is turning against plaquenil, but it was worth a shot.
 
Eielson said:
Sure, it's antimalarial. It's also antiviral and an immunosuppressant. There have been other antivirals used, but none have been shown to be more effective than hydroxychloroquine at this point. The tide is turning against plaquenil, but it was worth a shot.
Click to expand...

Again, splitting hairs, but it’s not an antiviral.

Show me which viral disease it’s been proven effective against.
 
BoulderSooner said:
If that study is accurate. Then the asymptotic rate is closer to 80-90% or higher
Click to expand...

I understand and am saying it's not that big of a surprise. we knew it was at least 50% ... add in population density factor for LA over Iceland and that doesnt surprise me a bit. well, maybe a little. point being there was evidence to expect this if people were being aware.
 
steverocks35 said:
https://apnews.com/a5077c7227b8eb8b0dc23423c0bbe2b2

Looks like my skepticism was correct. Barring some wild error in this preliminary study, this pretty much puts the nail in the coffin of hydroxychloroquine. It was foolish to put so many resources into this unproven drug. We should have been focused on antivirals.

Also, I can’t believe that some people still think this is barely worse than the common cold. We are going to be very close to 50,000 deaths by the end of this week. I’m predicting a new big spike in cases as people are out physically spending their relief checks and not taking this seriously. It’s insane to me that the governor of Georgia is about to open gyms, tattoo parlors, hair salons etc. Southwest Georgia is an emerging hotspot, opening up the state as cases are exploding there is irresponsible and frankly, stupid. There are 6 million people in the Atlanta metro area. I just don’t understand it.

Anyway, I’ve got to get back to work. I’ve been on lunch break. We are processing lots of specimens from the drive through Covid-19 collections sites. Stay safe everyone.
Click to expand...

That study is a retrospective chart review. I'm not saying that hydroxychloroquine works but it's hilarious that you are drawing any conclusions form that study.

Steve—I just finished a retrospective analysis and found that patients taking aspirin have higher rates of heart attacks and strokes. I can’t believe anyone would take aspirin knowing this risk. Or maybe my study is chalk full of selection bias.

Didn’t you make fun the prospective French study that didn’t have a control group. This study is even worse evidence than the French one!
 
Last edited:
The only reason so many people like steve are getting riled up about plaquenil is because of what trump said in a press conference. Using plaquenil to combat COVID was a valid treatment that was very safe. It didn’t cause harm and was worth a try to combat an illness for which we have no treatment.

Back to trump. He’s not a doctor and he was trying to put a positive spin on a bad situation. Anyone trying to blame him for killing people when plaquenil doesn’t work is not only reaching but they’re being completely dishonest. You’re just looking for a reason to blame trump and not looking honestly at the situation.
 
mict085 said:
The only reason so many people like steve are getting riled up about plaquenil is because of what trump said in a press conference. Using plaquenil to combat COVID was a valid treatment that was very safe. It didn’t cause harm and was worth a try to combat an illness for which we have no treatment.

Back to trump. He’s not a doctor and he was trying to put a positive spin on a bad situation. Anyone trying to blame him for killing people when plaquenil doesn’t work is not only reaching but they’re being completely dishonest. You’re just looking for a reason to blame trump and not looking honestly at the situation.
Click to expand...


When I listen to the people you speak about I conjure up an image of a person with a stake in one hand and a wooden hammer in the other. X marks the spot! Now if there were only vampires. Blah!!!!!!!!! I want to suck your blood.
 
Last edited:
It’s now being reported that someone in California who died in their home on February 6th died of coronavirus. Usually takes at least 17 days to die of COVID, sometimes more. That means it was in California at least mid-January. They weren’t tested because they didn’t have travel to China. Could there have already been community spread at that point?
 
Last edited:
SoonerJK12 said:
That study is a retrospective chart review. I'm not saying that hydroxychloroquine works but it's hilarious that you are drawing any conclusions form that study.

Steve—I just finished a retrospective analysis and found that patients taking aspirin have higher rates of heart attacks and strokes. I can’t believe anyone would take aspirin knowing this risk. Or maybe my study is chalk full of selection bias.

Didn’t you make fun the prospective French study that didn’t have a control group. This study is even worse evidence than the French one!
Click to expand...

Here we go again, around and around. Again, as previously stated in this thread the reason I found the French study flawed is because 1. It had a tiny sample size (IIRC 28 total people between both the control group and the experimental group. 2. 3 people from the tiny experimental group were sent to ICU because they got too sick to continue (one died) and these were not included in the final calculations. So yes, I made fun of that study.

As for this study, yes it was a review of outcomes of covid-19 patients, some that took the drug and some that did not. Was it a double-blind clinical trial? Nope, it was not, but it is based on a large number of patients which makes up for some inherent design flaws of the study. Is it proof that the drug is ineffective? No, it not definitive, and I never said it was. But since it's based on a large number it is another data point, another nail in the hydroxychloroqhine coffin. The reason I take the study seriously is that in a study that large, even with its acknowledged flaws, you would expect to see the efficacy of the therapy reflected in patient outcomes. And what was discovered is that the patient outcomes really weren't affected at all by the drug, or there was maybe a very small negative effect (I'm not sold on the negative effects of the drug, but I am becoming more and more convinced that it is useless in treating any viral disease as has been demonstrated in the past.) As for you aspirin example, if aspirin was a new drug and we wanted to see how it affected cardiac patients, it would be useful to look at outcomes of hundreds of these patients that took aspirin, and those that did not take it. To me it makes sense to add the study as a data point. YMMV.

mict085 said:
The only reason so many people like steve are getting riled up about plaquenil is because of what trump said in a press conference. Using plaquenil to combat COVID was a valid treatment that was very safe. It didn’t cause harm and was worth a try to combat an illness for which we have no treatment
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "people like steve?" Do you mean people with degrees in microbiology and public health? Do you mean people with 2 decades working in this field? Do you mean people actively testing patients and helping plan the Covid-19 response in Oklahoma? Is that what you mean by "people like Steve?" Also you don't know if it caused harm or not because you have no idea what you're talking about. The reason I am skeptical of this drug, as previously stated, is because it has been trialed many times for treatment of viral disease in the past such as Ebola and H1N1 with no success.
 
steverocks35 said:
Here we go again, around and around. Again, as previously stated in this thread the reason I found the French study flawed is because 1. It had a tiny sample size (IIRC 28 total people between both the control group and the experimental group. 2. 3 people from the tiny experimental group were sent to ICU because they got too sick to continue (one died) and these were not included in the final calculations. So yes, I made fun of that study.

As for this study, yes it was a review of outcomes of covid-19 patients, some that took the drug and some that did not. Was it a double-blind clinical trial? Nope, it was not, but it is based on a large number of patients which makes up for some inherent design flaws of the study. Is it proof that the drug is ineffective? No, it not definitive, and I never said it was. But since it's based on a large number it is another data point, another nail in the hydroxychloroqhine coffin. The reason I take the study seriously is that in a study that large, even with its acknowledged flaws, you would expect to see the efficacy of the therapy reflected in patient outcomes. And what was discovered is that the patient outcomes really weren't affected at all by the drug, or there was maybe a very small negative effect (I'm not sold on the negative effects of the drug, but I am becoming more and more convinced that it is useless in treating any viral disease as has been demonstrated in the past.) As for you aspirin example, if aspirin was a new drug and we wanted to see how it affected cardiac patients, it would be useful to look at outcomes of hundreds of these patients that took aspirin, and those that did not take it. To me it makes sense to add the study as a data point. YMMV.
success.
Click to expand...

You are not understanding the problems with a RETROSPECTIVE COHORT STUDY. There is so much selection bias and observational bias in a study like that. Especially when studying a drug like this during a pandemic. And we don't even know if the two cohort were similar because they haven't released any Table 1 data.

My point was that study should not even be a data point in your analysis. It's even worse than the French study -- which to your point was not rigorous. You aren't gonna find an answer to the question "Does hydroxychloroquine benefit COVID patients" with a retrospective chart review. You should stop commenting about the effectiveness of the drug until a controlled trial plays out.

You keep screaming for evidence and then using terrible evidence in your arguments. That's all I am saying.
 
SoonerJK12 said:
You are not understanding the problems with a RETROSPECTIVE COHORT STUDY. There is so much selection bias and observational bias in a study like that. Especially when studying a drug like this during a pandemic. And we don't even know if the two cohort were similar because they haven't released any Table 1 data.

My point was that study should not even be a data point in your analysis. It's even worse than the French study -- which to your point was not rigorous. You aren't gonna find an answer to the question "Does hydroxychloroquine benefit COVID patients" with a retrospective chart review. You should stop commenting about the effectiveness of the drug until a controlled trial plays out.

You keep screaming for evidence and then using terrible evidence in your arguments. That's all I am saying.
Click to expand...

We have essentially no good data on COVID. We're digging through garbage studies that would never hold weight in normal circumstances. It'll be interesting to see in a year or two what actually worked. My suspicion is that plaquenil will quickly fall out of favor, but I have high hopes for steroids based on what I've seen (which is obviously weak, anecdotal evidence).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
Team Trends Heading into Last Weeks of Season
Replies
5
Views
419
WichitaSooner
W
C
Quick Intro and a few thoughts
2
Replies
20
Views
1K
opsooner
O
BoulderSooner
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!!
Replies
0
Views
172
BoulderSooner
BoulderSooner
O
Resume is Fine; Eye Test is Not
3 4 5
Replies
82
Views
3K
WichitaSooner
W
W
Uzan's struggles
Replies
19
Views
989
CMSOONER
CMSOONER
Back
Top