Jump to content

Menu

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 16.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Ausmumof3

    3088

  • Pen

    2359

  • Arcadia

    1337

  • prairiewindmomma

    305

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

DS got home 3 hours ago!  ❤️❤️

Update-  my youngest is not only short of breath, coughing, dizzy, nausaues, and with headache-  she is also confused.  I called our doctor and talked with him and she is going to be going to the ER.

That's not a blanket right.  If my religion required human sacrifice, I can't practice it.  If my religion required sexual assault, I can't practice it. Freedom of religion isn't a blanket right

Posted Images

The better treatments are providing better outcomes. HCQ/AZ despite a bunch of garbage studies, does seem to be helping here in the US and globally by pretty clear measures, especially earlier in the disease. The various steroid treatments seem to be making a different too, when the symptoms path is such that systemwide inflammation and CTK storms are already happening. That seems to be changing how many people even make it to ‘severe’ levels, and that’s excellent. Lower lethality is always good. Hopefully the numbers are also better because we are better protecting our most vulnerable populations, but that’s not accounting for many of the differences in the studies I’ve seen over the last few weeks.

Edited by Arctic Mama
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, square_25 said:

I’m definitely interested :-). But how would he know if it’s the same population, though?

Ok, it'll take me a little time. I'm typing on phone...

The population could be making a difference. That is what I wondered with the MN numbers. But I don't think Oregon ever had a significant nursing home problem. The NYC doc deals solely with covid patients, you think he'd know if there was a huge difference in the population.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, TracyP said:

The NYC doctor said it is directly related to better treatments. He went very specifically into what they are doing now and how it is changing outcomes. Let me know if you are interested and I'll try to summarize what I remember.

It makes perfect sense I think, that once we got our feet under us and learned more that mortality would go down. I think the big problem to continuing to do well now is testing. If we can’t test people and know who to quarantine etc. we’ll continue to lose control. At first the testing was appalling, but then we all stayed home so it didn’t matter quite so much that we didn’t know who was sick. Now we’re all trying to go about our lives not knowing who should stay home.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, square_25 said:

It does make sense, but on the other hand, I don't see why we then don't have positive studies of any of the treatments except remdesivir, which didn't have a huge effect. It's possible it's just lag, but it does make me wonder if catching more cases is making us more complacent. 

There is a study showing good outcomes for the dexamethazone (?sp) from Uk unless it’s been retracted.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, square_25 said:

I’m definitely interested :-). But how would he know if it’s the same population, though?

OMG I was almost done and lost my post!! !#*%&@*

First off this is NY specific. He is hoping other hospitals hear this, but he says hospitals can be slow to change.

Understanding the disease progression is key. WEEK 1: typically mild symptoms; WEEK 2: most recover but this is where severe respiratory symptoms show up in some; WEEK 3: risk of blood clots becomes significant in those who haven't recovered

This is important because the treatment you get is dependent on where you are in the progression. WEEK 1: self care at home, a certain number of people should be on an anticoagulant at this stage but they haven't pinpointed who (personally I wonder if adults would benefit from a low dose aspirin at this point?); WEEK 2: most recover but those that don't should have a pulse ox to watch for numbers under 90, those that are hospitalized should start a blood thinner and dexamethasone (or an equivalent steroid); WEEK 3: patients at home should continue as before, those that are still hospitalized should be startes on tossilites (ok, I'm sure I have that wrong and will try to edit. I'm not risking leaving this page...) 

This is combined with what we know about proning and using low flow oxygen which has also improved outcomes. They also said that antibiotics were being used inappropriately at first. They were actually causing more problems so they should be an absolute last resort even if blood work indicates a bacterial infection. Whew, I think I covered most of it...

ETA: to the "tossilites" I can't find anything that fits the word I recall. I got the impression that it was a family of drugs, not a specific drug. He said there was "low quality evidence" that they improved the most severe cases. He defined low quality evidence as anecdotal evidence that he and his colleagues were seeing, he emphasized that studies would need to be run to verify their effectiveness. Dang, I wish I could remember the name.

ETA 2: I believe the drug is tocilizumab. Thanks @Pen

Edited by TracyP
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

twitter thread on Sweden.  I wouldn’t say it’s unbiased but interesting to read the different stages and explanation for the increasing case/declining death scenario.  Comments are interesting for balance as well.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, square_25 said:

It does make sense, but on the other hand, I don't see why we then don't have positive studies of any of the treatments except remdesivir, which didn't have a huge effect. It's possible it's just lag, but it does make me wonder if catching more cases is making us more complacent. 

It may be that some of the early mortality was because of things we did badly that we then stopped, rather than the fact that we have found things that really work and that’s why mortality may be lower now. I think it’s too early to make any real judgment because of the lag. In the early days there was so much anecdotal stuff coming from the hard hit areas that policies changed daily or even more often, and people were nervous about applying previous knowledge of other disease processes in case it was the wrong thing to do.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

There is a study showing good outcomes for the dexamethazone (?sp) from Uk unless it’s been retracted.

He said this had made huge improvements. It should be given for anybody severe enough to be hospitalized. If dexamethasone is unavailable, he listed 2 other steroids and the dosage that should be given. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, TracyP said:

He said this had made huge improvements. It should be given for anybody severe enough to be hospitalized. If dexamethasone is unavailable, he listed 2 other steroids and the dosage that should be given. 

We are using dexamethasone on hospitalized patients and Remdesivir on some.

 

ETA - only a very few patients here though so far

Edited by TCB
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Pen said:

 

I haven’t listened to it yet, but DrBeen has a YouTube video addressing statins and Covid. Since Tricor is a statin, maybe it will apply .  He usually explains likely mechanisms of action. 

 

Just to clarify, Tricor/Fenofibrate is a fibric acid, which is not a statin. They are both used to lower cholesterol and triglycerides, but they have a different mechanism of action in the body. 

ETA: Here is a good cheatsheet:

https://step1.medbullets.com/cardiovascular/108073/lipid-lowering-drugs

Edited by SeaConquest
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, square_25 said:

How big is the effect size, do you know? Is it randomized? 

It was randomized. 

Now, preliminary results from the RECOVERY trial conducted in the United Kingdom are showing that the agent reduced mortality by approximately one-third in patients with COVID-19 who were on ventilators (rate ratio [RR] 0.65; 95% CI, 0.48-0.88; P = .0003).2 Moreover, for other patients who received oxygen only, dexamethasone reduced deaths by one-fifth (RR 0.80; 95% CI, 0.67-0.96; P = .0021).

Link to the preprint

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.22.20137273v1

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TracyP said:

OMG I was almost done and lost my post!! !#*%&@*

First off this is NY specific. He is hoping other hospitals hear this, but he says hospitals can be slow to change.

Understanding the disease progression is key. WEEK 1: typically mild symptoms; WEEK 2: most recover but this is where severe respiratory symptoms show up in some; WEEK 3: risk of blood clots becomes significant in those who haven't recovered

This is important because the treatment you get is dependent on where you are in the progression. WEEK 1: self care at home, a certain number of people should be on an anticoagulant at this stage but they haven't pinpointed who (personally I wonder if adults would benefit from a low dose aspirin at this point?); WEEK 2: most recover but those that don't should have a pulse ox to watch for numbers under 90, those that are hospitalized should start a blood thinner and dexamethasone (or an equivalent steroid); WEEK 3: patients at home should continue as before, those that are still hospitalized should be startes on tossilites (ok, I'm sure I have that wrong and will try to edit. I'm not risking leaving this page...) 

This is combined with what we know about proning and using low flow oxygen which has also improved outcomes. They also said that antibiotics were being used inappropriately at first. They were actually causing more problems so they should be an absolute last resort even if blood work indicates a bacterial infection. Whew, I think I covered most of it...

ETA: to the "tossilites" I can't find anything that fits the word I recall. I got the impression that it was a family of drugs, not a specific drug. He said there was "low quality evidence" that they improved the most severe cases. He defined low quality evidence as anecdotal evidence that he and his colleagues were seeing, he emphasized that studies would need to be run to verify their effectiveness. Dang, I wish I could remember the name.

 

Is the MD Daniel Griffin? Do you recall which episode of TWiV where he was discussing treatments? He’s recently mentioned the convalescents being somewhat helpful (convalescent plasma used to passively transfer antibodies).

ETA TriCor (fenofibrate) falls under the fibrates group of drugs but I don’t think they are being used to treat Covid patients. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Mt. Sinai Medical Center study involved in vitro testing, not in vivo, iirc, but it looks promising.

Edited by BeachGal
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TracyP said:

Does anybody want to talk about declining mortality rates around covid? I brought this up a couple weeks ago because it appears from my state's data that outcomes are improving. Since then I have heard a NYC doctor (on TWiV) say that outcomes are vastly improved. He said that 65% of people on vents would end in death in March. Now most people never get put on vents and when they do 29% die. This seems like such positive news, I'm wondering why nobody is talking about it. Here is an article I found detailing the difference Oregon hospitals are seeing.

https://www.oregonlive.com/health/2020/07/covid-19-survival-rate-improves-significantly-at-local-hospitals.html

Of the 900 patients hospitalized in all Providence facilities in March, 20% died. Of the 1,200 hospitalized in May, 14% died, Robicsek said.

Oregon Health & Science University showed even steeper declines. The mortality rate fell from 23% in March when six of the hospital’s 26 COVID-19 patients died to 3% in May (one of 37) and 4% in June (two of 52).

At Legacy Health, the mortality rate was 40% in March, when 12 of the hospital’s 30 patients died. By May, the rate had declined to 13% when five of 37 patients died.

 

Yes.

I think that is real and significant.

 

Whatever all it represents, fewer Nursing Home uncontrolled outbreaks, better understanding of how to manage hospital patients, etc, I think it is a good sign . 

 

were you able to get past paywall without subscribing or did you subscribe? 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SeaConquest said:

 

Just to clarify, Tricor/Fenofibrate is a fibric acid, which is not a statin. They are both used to lower cholesterol and triglycerides, but they have a different mechanism of action in the body. 

ETA: Here is a good cheatsheet:

https://step1.medbullets.com/cardiovascular/108073/lipid-lowering-drugs

 

Thank you!!! 

I will go delete my prior message not to lead anyone astray!!!

 

ETA: reading this, I feel better about Tricor.  I have been statin-wary!

 

also, reading your link, it makes me wonder about Niacin...

do you have any thoughts?

 

Edited by Pen
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, BeachGal said:

 

Is the MD Daniel Griffin? Do you recall which episode of TWiV where he was discussing treatments? He’s recently mentioned the convalescents being somewhat helpful (convalescent plasma used to passively transfer antibodies).

ETA TriCor (fenofibrate) falls under the fibrates group of drugs but I don’t think they are being used to treat Covid patients. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Mt. Sinai Medical Center study involved in vitro testing, not in vivo, iirc, but it looks promising.

Yes, Daniel Griffin. It was either episode 632 or 635. I am leaning toward 632.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

Yes.

I think that is real and significant.

 

Whatever all it represents, fewer Nursing Home uncontrolled outbreaks, better understanding of how to manage hospital patients, etc, I think it is a good sign . 

 

were you able to get past paywall without subscribing or did you subscribe? 

No paywall for me

Link to post
Share on other sites

This was really good news, I hadn’t previously heard if they’d been able to follow through with the population. I’m not a fan of masks but they do definitely seem to make a difference in this sort of high exposure situation and that is significant for other workplaces, especially.

https://www.axios.com/stylists-covid-19-mask-1febf8c1-a6f1-4233-a494-128cf2f6a483.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=organic&utm_content=1100

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, square_25 said:

It does make sense, but on the other hand, I don't see why we then don't have positive studies of any of the treatments except remdesivir, which didn't have a huge effect. It's possible it's just lag, but it does make me wonder if catching more cases is making us more complacent. 

I think a lot of what is helping is not a particular wonder med, but just better understanding of the disease, knowing what to look for, etc. Things like knowing to look for and prevent clotting can make a huge difference compared to when they just were looking at respiratory stuff. 

And I'd bet money part of it is just experience. Medicine is as much an art as a science. Being around a disease enough lets you get a gut feeling of when things are about to go bad, who needs to be watched more closely, which treatment to try, etc. Like, in a vet clinic I could SMELL a diabetic cat, or a pseudomonas ear infection, etc. So I'd catch those before someone who had little experience with those things. 

  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

Radiation may work as a treatment for Covid pneumonia. It's very preliminary, and only involved a very small number of patients. But it sounds promising.

Quote

Lung radiation may hasten COVID-19 pneumonia recovery

A low dose of radiation to the lungs of COVID-19 pneumonia patients can help them recover more quickly, a small study suggests. Doctors at Emory University in Atlanta treated 10 such patients with lung radiation and compared them to 10 patients of similar ages who received usual care, without radiation. With radiation, the average time to significant improvement was three days, compared to 12 days in the control group.

Other potential effects included a shorter average time to hospital discharge (12 days with radiation versus 20 days without it) and a lower risk of mechanical ventilation (10% with radiation versus 40% without it). But those two differences were too small to rule out the possibility they were due to chance, the researchers found.

The radiation group was “a little older, a little sicker, and their lungs were a little more damaged ... but despite that we saw a strong signal of efficacy,” Emory’s Dr. Mohammad Khan told Reuters.

Khan noted that in the radiation group, COVID-19 medications were withheld before and after the treatment, so the results reflect the effect of the radiation alone.

“Radiotherapy,” Khan said, “can reduce the inflammation in the lungs of COVID-19 patients and reduce the cytokines that are causing the inflammation.” Cytokines are proteins made by the immune system. The results on the first five patients have been accepted for publication by the journal Cancer.

The results on all 10 were posted on Tuesday ahead of peer review on the website medRxiv. The researchers have launched a randomized controlled trial of the treatment and expect to eventually include multiple centers. (bit.ly/2DDaAdI)

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

This was really good news, I hadn’t previously heard if they’d been able to follow through with the population. I’m not a fan of masks but they do definitely seem to make a difference in this sort of high exposure situation and that is significant for other workplaces, especially.

https://www.axios.com/stylists-covid-19-mask-1febf8c1-a6f1-4233-a494-128cf2f6a483.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=organic&utm_content=1100

Yes it was fantastic that they didn’t pass it on to their clients!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

This was really good news, I hadn’t previously heard if they’d been able to follow through with the population. I’m not a fan of masks but they do definitely seem to make a difference in this sort of high exposure situation and that is significant for other workplaces, especially.

https://www.axios.com/stylists-covid-19-mask-1febf8c1-a6f1-4233-a494-128cf2f6a483.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=organic&utm_content=1100

 

I was really good news, and a good piece of irl evidence for wearing masks.

 

The 3 teachers in Arizona situation seems to indicate that just Masks is not enough however. (Though I am not sure they were worn if people were alone in the classroom. Maybe people took any opportunity of being “alone“ to take a mask break.   More information is needed on whether they were on all the time even if alone at the time. ) 

Edited by Pen
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, square_25 said:

I don't think anyone thinks masks is a perfect solution for when people are together long-term. It's all a "viral load" game -- the longer you are with someone, the more likely you are to get sick. 

 

Right.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

I was really good news, and a good piece of irl evidence for wearing masks.

The 3 teachers in Arizona situation seems to indicate that just Masks is not enough however. (Though I am not sure they were worn if people were alone in the classroom. Maybe people took any opportunity of being “alone“ to take a mask break.   More information is needed on whether they were on all the time even if alone at the time. ) 

Well, it's also time. Wearing a mask out shopping, or even in a bus for an hour or less, isn't as much as being in the same room with someone for 6-7 hours.  Viral load - masks cut down on your exposure and in shorter and more ventilated situations can give much better peace of mind, but unless they're full medical, fitted PPE, they're not foolproof, especially indoors for a long time with an infected person.  

And as someone else mentioned,  we don't know if anyone was in there alone with masks off before someone else came in - then the virus is already in the air.  Masks prevent spew more than intake, and the virus will build up in a poorly ventilated room.

Which is why I think the school idea, especially with older kids who switch classes, is a recipe for disaster. 

Edited by Matryoshka
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, square_25 said:

I don't think anyone thinks masks is a perfect solution for when people are together long-term. It's all a "viral load" game -- the longer you are with someone, the more likely you are to get sick. 

You said it much more succinctly than I! 😄

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, square_25 said:

I don't think anyone thinks masks is a perfect solution for when people are together long-term. It's all a "viral load" game -- the longer you are with someone, the more likely you are to get sick. 

Yeah, honestly, I see this as an argument for not making elementary school students mask in the classroom.  If you're in there for so long (6-7 hours), I think the only real hope of avoiding infection is that nobody in your cohort is infected.  Which in my mind, is an argument for very small, very stable cohorts.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Pen said:

@TracyP

Tocilixumab was mentioned in 632 for cytokine storm 

That sounds like word you could not quite recall. 

That drug sounds like the name of an Aztec god..  fear not, Tocilixumab will heal you!...

Sorry, got a bit silly there for a moment. .. carry on! 😆

  • Like 2
  • Haha 20
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Pen said:

@TracyP

Tocilixumab was mentioned in 632 for cytokine storm 

That sounds like word you could not quite recall. 

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-07-survival-tocilizumab-ventilated-covid-patients.html

 

it seems to be another potentially beneficial drug for late cases—but I would rather stay off ventilator and out of ICU (and ideally out of hospital at all) in the first place.

I have thus tended to focus on what I can do to possibly decrease risk of infection, severity of infection, and the early home stage.  

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Terabith said:

Yeah, honestly, I see this as an argument for not making elementary school students mask in the classroom.  If you're in there for so long (6-7 hours), I think the only real hope of avoiding infection is that nobody in your cohort is infected.  Which in my mind, is an argument for very small, very stable cohorts.  

 

I still want all of the above.  Small stable and distanced cohorts And also everyone who can to wear masks. 

 

From the UCSF Grand Rounds someone posted yesterday, Safe School opening needs a multifaceted approach.  All the items in bold on the chart, and the grey to extent reasonably feasible. 

on the one chart the reason for less bold type on ventilation was that while important, it isn’t possible in many schools without major remodeling. ... and cleaning / disinfection is thought to be less useful than the other items. 

D6E52780-6239-4DD4-A82A-9A1CAF202796.jpeg

70A41BF6-B33D-4E83-ADB0-EDF2204857C5.jpeg

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Terabith said:

Yeah, honestly, I see this as an argument for not making elementary school students mask in the classroom.  If you're in there for so long (6-7 hours), I think the only real hope of avoiding infection is that nobody in your cohort is infected.  Which in my mind, is an argument for very small, very stable cohorts.  

 

Another way to look at it is that long time together is all the more reason for upping to the max other possible protections such as distance and physical barriers .

 

Masks will also tend to decrease spread of other respiratory infections which could help decrease overlapping infections which tends to increase risks, and could also decrease “is this Covid or just a common cold” or “is this Covid or strep” issues.  And handwashing etc could help decrease General school as Petri dish and illness spreader too. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pen said:

 

I was really good news, and a good piece of irl evidence for wearing masks.

 

The 3 teachers in Arizona situation seems to indicate that just Masks is not enough however. (Though I am not sure they were worn if people were alone in the classroom. Maybe people took any opportunity of being “alone“ to take a mask break.   More information is needed on whether they were on all the time even if alone at the time. ) 

Well, if you take a drink, or eat something, you take it off. So if they were there all day they would have done that repeatedly. Also going to happen in classrooms in the fall - kids taking masks off to eat lunch, teachers needing to drink water, etc. 

40 minutes ago, Terabith said:

Yeah, honestly, I see this as an argument for not making elementary school students mask in the classroom.  If you're in there for so long (6-7 hours), I think the only real hope of avoiding infection is that nobody in your cohort is infected.  Which in my mind, is an argument for very small, very stable cohorts.  

But it helps. If you are doing to be opening schools, you have to do what you can. If you are going to speed on the highway, might as well wear a seatbelt. Better not to speed though. 

As posted earlier, in my county the Georgia Tech predictor says over an 80% chance there is a positive person in a group of 25 kids. We shouldn't have them grouped together at all, but if we do, they had better at least wear masks to lower the viral load or maybe maybe shorten how far droplets go in the room. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Lake County, FL has had a positive teacher in their summer program. They sent the teacher home for 2 weeks, cleaned the classroom overnight, and said the students can come right back - none of her students are required to isolate, be tested, anything. 

  • Sad 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ktgrok said:

Lake County, FL has had a positive teacher in their summer program. They sent the teacher home for 2 weeks, cleaned the classroom overnight, and said the students can come right back - none of her students are required to isolate, be tested, anything. 

Well, that seems like a recipe for disaster.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Terabith said:

Well, that seems like a recipe for disaster.  

Doesn't it? 

I suppose that answers the whole "how will there be any continuity of education if kids and teachers are constantly being cycled in and out of school every time someone tests positive". You don't do that. Problem solved! Sigh. 

And what substitute wants to go into that class now?

Link to post
Share on other sites

SMH - “COVID cases linked to Sydney's swelling Crossroads Hotel cluster were infectious within a day or two after they had been infected, leaving contact tracers little time to contain the virus.

Coronavirus cases linked to Sydney's swelling Crossroads Hotel cluster are becoming infectious as soon as one day after contracting the virus, leaving contact tracers little time to contain the spread.”

This is quite fast I think.  Will definitely make it harder to track people down in time.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, TracyP said:

I haven't heard anything outside this article which clearly paints this new data collection attempt as a bad thing. My thoughts... The U.S. needs a better data collection system. This seems to fill this need. The article talks about politicization and transparency being issues. Pffft, as if those aren't already issues within the CDC. So for now, I think this is a positive step.

The new database was built by Palantir, a private data mining & surveillance company co-founded by billionaire Trump donor Peter Thiel. Palantir received two no-bid contracts, worth $25 million, to build and manage the Covid database. Palantir is controversial because of their secrecy and their surveillance contracts with ICE and other law enforcement organizations, and the data they collect will not be available to the public (unlike CDC data). Hence the concerns about politicization and transparency.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Corraleno said:

The new database was built by Palantir, a private data mining & surveillance company co-founded by billionaire Trump donor Peter Thiel. Palantir received two no-bid contracts, worth $25 million, to build and manage the Covid database. Palantir is controversial because of their secrecy and their surveillance contracts with ICE and other law enforcement organizations, and the data they collect will not be available to the public (unlike CDC data). Hence the concerns about politicization and transparency.

SMH

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

The new database was built by Palantir, a private data mining & surveillance company co-founded by billionaire Trump donor Peter Thiel. Palantir received two no-bid contracts, worth $25 million, to build and manage the Covid database. Palantir is controversial because of their secrecy and their surveillance contracts with ICE and other law enforcement organizations, and the data they collect will not be available to the public (unlike CDC data). Hence the concerns about politicization and transparency.

It looks like Palantir is already doing covid data collection for the NHS. I guess that makes them a logical choice, tho I admit I never know what to make of these no-bid contracts. I believe the UK is being transparent with their data. For now, I am holding out hope that the U.S. will also be transparent with the data.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Reuters (another treatment that may show some promise although only a small study)
 

Lung radiation may hasten COVID-19 pneumonia recovery

A low dose of radiation to the lungs of COVID-19 pneumonia patients can help them recover more quickly, a small study suggests. Doctors at Emory University in Atlanta treated 10 such patients with lung radiation and compared them to 10 patients of similar ages who received usual care, without radiation. With radiation, the average time to significant improvement was three days, compared to 12 days in the control group. 

Other potential effects included a shorter average time to hospital discharge (12 days with radiation versus 20 days without it) and a lower risk of mechanical ventilation (10% with radiation versus 40% without it). But those two differences were too small to rule out the possibility they were due to chance, the researchers found. 

The radiation group was "a little older, a little sicker, and their lungs were a little more damaged ... but despite that we saw a strong signal of efficacy," Emory's Dr. Mohammad Khan told Reuters.

Khan noted that in the radiation group, COVID-19 medications were withheld before and after the treatment, so the results reflect the effect of the radiation alone. 

"Radiotherapy," Khan said, "can reduce the inflammation in the lungs of COVID-19 patients and reduce the cytokines that are causing the inflammation." Cytokines are proteins made by the immune system. The results on the first five patients have been accepted for publication by the journal Cancer. 

The results on all 10 were posted on Tuesday ahead of peer review on the website medRxiv. The researchers have launched a randomized controlled trial of the treatment and expect to eventually include multiple centers. 

Edited by Ausmumof3
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, TracyP said:

It looks like Palantir is already doing covid data collection for the NHS. I guess that makes them a logical choice, tho I admit I never know what to make of these no-bid contracts. I believe the UK is being transparent with their data. For now, I am holding out hope that the U.S. will also be transparent with the data.

Palantir built the database months ago, it has been functional since April. What's different now is that hospitals have been told they cannot report their data to CDC, it can only be reported to the HHS/Palantir database, which is not public. Totally bypassing the CDC in the middle of a pandemic, while funneling all data to a database created on a no-bid contract by a private company with ties to the president is extremely unusual. So people are concerned that (1) the administration can claim the numbers are whatever they want them to be and no one else will have access to the data, and (2) Palantir could mine/use/sell the data for their own purposes.

  • Like 10
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Palantir built the database months ago, it has been functional since April. What's different now is that hospitals have been told they cannot report their data to CDC, it can only be reported to the HHS/Palantir database, which is not public. Totally bypassing the CDC in the middle of a pandemic, while funneling all data to a database created on a no-bid contract by a private company with ties to the president is extremely unusual. So people are concerned that (1) the administration can claim the numbers are whatever they want them to be and no one else will have access to the data, and (2) Palantir could mine/use/sell the data for their own purposes.

I think they still can report to CDC but they’re no longer required to?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I think they still can report to CDC but they’re no longer required to?

The instructions issued by the administration explicitly say that hospitals should not submit data to CDC. I supposed some hospitals could submit it to the CDC anyway, but if they're only getting partial data, they can't do anything with that anyway. The only organization that will now have complete data is the administration's department of Health & Human Services.

The head of the CDC is a virologist and MD with years of research experience as well as public health experience. The deputy director is also an MD with 30 years experience in public health. They have been cut out of the loop in favor of HHS, where both the Secretary and Deputy Secretary are lawyers with zero background in medicine, public health, or epidemiology, and the deputy Chief of Staff for Policy has a business degree. These are the people who will be making policy decisions about the pandemic from now on.

  • Sad 13
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Palantir built the database months ago, it has been functional since April. What's different now is that hospitals have been told they cannot report their data to CDC, it can only be reported to the HHS/Palantir database, which is not public. Totally bypassing the CDC in the middle of a pandemic, while funneling all data to a database created on a no-bid contract by a private company with ties to the president is extremely unusual. So people are concerned that (1) the administration can claim the numbers are whatever they want them to be and no one else will have access to the data, and (2) Palantir could mine/use/sell the data for their own purposes.

I see where this could potentially be very problematic. The NHS agreement is very clear that they cannot use the data and must destroy it after a certain time. Do we know that the U.S. won't have the same deal? Won't states still be releasing data? Where are you seeing that these numbers won't be made public?

Fwiw, I have huge problems with the fact that politicians give these deals to their buddies. But it is not only one party that does this and it happens at every level of government. That doesn't factor in on my thoughts on this database because I have come to believe that almost every person in power does this. I hate it, but it seems to be the norm.

I'm trying so hard to not be political, but I have to say... do you have any clue how uncomfortable I am defending this administration in any way? Lolol, it is killing me... I just don't have enough information yet to determine this new database is an attempt to fudge the numbers. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

The instructions issued by the administration explicitly say that hospitals should not submit data to CDC. I supposed some hospitals could submit it to the CDC anyway, but if they're only getting partial data, they can't do anything with that anyway. The only organization that will now have complete data is the administration's department of Health & Human Services.

The head of the CDC is a virologist and MD with years of research experience as well as public health experience. The deputy director is also an MD with 30 years experience in public health. They have been cut out of the loop in favor of HHS, where both the Secretary and Deputy Secretary are lawyers with zero background in medicine, public health, or epidemiology, and the deputy Chief of Staff for Policy has a business degree. These are the people who will be making policy decisions about the pandemic from now on.

But this is already happening, right? I mean the CDC has absolutely no pull right now anyway. The administration is clearly going to continue to minimize them regardless of this database.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ElizabethB said:

Really interesting HCQ and Covid-19 death rates during pause in its use, from FrenchSoir, never heard of them.

http://www.francesoir.fr/societe-sante/covid-19-hydroxychloroquine-works-irrefutable-proof

1394713250_ScreenShot2020-07-15at4_33_43PM.thumb.png.dd0f63ecf7a2eee01f77bbfeee6456fb.png

 

So, Panama has a rising death rate now, after they discontinued HCQ.  They just reinstated HCQ.

If their deaths go down in 2 weeks, that seems like pretty good proof of HCQ to me, a future prediction the will either work or not, although it could still be random chance.

Panama deaths, HCQ use stopped at end of May, at just under 10 deaths daily then, now up to high 20's.  https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/panama/

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...