Jump to content

Menu

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Corraleno said:

His whole schtick seems to be snarky, dismissive comments about other people's research, and he clearly didn't even read ANY of the actual research or data. He read the first line of the abstract (which of course doesn't include references, abstracts never include references), then he finds the references in the paper that relate to the first line of the abstract, dismisses them as "irrelevant" and says the paper is not worth reading. How could he possibly know if they're irrelevant to the actual research if he didn't bother to read the research? One of the references he dismissed as irrelevant is about stem-cell derived heart tissue, which is what they used in the in vitro part of the study. So clearly relevant to the actual research, but he wouldn't know that from only reading the first line of the abstract. 

I looked at his list of publications and none of them have anything to do with virology, he appears to focus on heart attacks and coronary artery disease. So, with zero background in this area, he is dismissing the work of multiple academic researchers who specialize in this exact area, without even reading the paper, because he gets attention on social media for being snarky and dismissive. Not impressed.

Wait, isn't this all rather dismissive? Are you an expert in the field??

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 16.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Ausmumof3

    3068

  • Pen

    2339

  • 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

4 minutes ago, EmseB said:

I feel like this is the exact opposite of the HCQ discussion in terms of who is now more accepting of retrospective observational and in vitro studies and if or what action should ensue. Except I am not @Pen. 🤣

A study in which the cause of the damage was unequivocally demonstrated in vitro (thus eliminating the possibility that the damage was caused by some other agent or by pre-exiting conditions), and then confirmed by autopsy in 100% of the patients whose tissues they had access to. 

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

Wait, isn't this all rather dismissive? Are you an expert in the field??

I'm dismissing the opinion of one random cardiologist who (1) has no expertise in the area of the UCSF research and (2) admits he didn't even bother to read the paper.

I'm not sure why anyone would take seriously someone's dismissal of a paper they never read? I can't imagine the reaction if I'd turned in a paper in grad school saying I hadn't bothered to read the paper I was critiquing, but I did read the first line of the abstract and I looked up 3 of the references, and I thought the references were irrelevant to the paper (that I didn't read), therefore I have debunked the research. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, EmseB said:

I feel like this is the exact opposite of the HCQ discussion in terms of who is now more accepting of retrospective observational and in vitro studies and if or what action should ensue. Except I am not @Pen. 🤣

 

What?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, EmseB said:

And many other cardiologists have debunked that paper over and over, or at least called it out for significant errors and it has been revised. And it was a preprint.

I honestly don't understand the sentiment that we want fully vetted RCTs for something like HCQ but a preprint with a lot of errors should be taken on, "Well, the authors said..."

No..no they haven't. There are not a lot of errors in it, and no one is basing treatment off of it anyway. It is something showing possible issues, and a need for further study. 

They don't have controls or whatever because it wasn't that kind of a study. Like, you can have a study that compares stuff, and you can have just basic research, looking at what happens to cells when exposed to something. That is what they were doing. And they found results they were not expecting, and shared those results. Period. 

 

 

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

I think she's talking about the German study, which hasn't been debunked, per se, but was absolutely sloppy and deserves the pushback, from what I've seen. (I haven't followed it very closely, but that's my impression.) 

Well I think the problem is that *we* were talking about the UCSF study, and she was responding to those posts as if we were talking about the German study, which is totally different in every way. And then when I specifically linked the UCSF study, she repeated the claim that it had been criticized, changes had been demanded, etc. So that seems to have led to a lot of confusion since AFAIK, there has not been any substantive criticism of the UCSF research so far.

Edited by Corraleno
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, square_25 said:

Right. Criticizing this research substantively would require doing real work, anyway... you'd have to try the same experiment and get different results, or inspect heart tissue from more autopsies, or find a similar pattern of damage in control subjects... it's not just a matter of looking through their numbers and seeing issues. 

I think there could also be methodological critiques — like someone with a background in this type of research might claim that a certain step or procedure had introduced other factors they hadn't accounted for, or that there may be other mechanisms than the one they posit (protease cleaving or whatever). Or someone who did a lot of autopsies might say that they had seen that type of damage as a result of some other cause (which wouldn't disprove that what they saw was caused by Covid, only that it might be caused by other things as well).

Other issues that have been (incorrectly IMO) raised as "critiques" of the research are really more suggestions for further research. Could this damage be caused by other types of viruses? That's an obvious area for further research, both in vitro and port-mortem. Are there ways of testing whether this type of damage exists in a living person? That would be incredibly useful if researchers can develop a way of measuring that. But none of those things are in any way a critique of the actual research.

Link to post
Share on other sites

“An observational study in the Netherlands found a possible link to low levels of vitamin K and severe cases of COVID. Scientists suggest that poor Vitamin K status may be linked to the breakdown of lung tissues, which is often seen in patients with severe cases of COVID (1). Remember that observational studies do not show cause and effect, and more research is needed to explore the possible link.”

 

Dofferhoff, A.S.; Piscaer, I.; Schurgers, L.J.; Walk, J.; van den Ouweland, J.M.; Hackeng, T.M.; de Jong, P.A.; Gosens, R.; Lux, P.; van Daal, H.; Maassen, C.; Maassen, E.G.; Kistemaker, L.E.; Vermeer, C.; Wouters, E.F.; Janssen, R. Reduced Vitamin K Status as A Potentially Modifiable Prognostic Risk Factor in COVID19. Preprints 2020, 2020040457 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202004.0457.v2)

 

ETA: I wonder if it might also relate to breakdown of heart tissues. 

Edited by Pen
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, EmseB said:

I had to run errands so haven't caught up on posts, but here is another discussion I found helpful:

OK, I read through as much of that thread as I could and the only actual "critiques" I saw were:

(1) A post from someone who did not appear to have read the study who said that since the heart tissue was derived from stem cells, the findings only applied to neonates.But they found exactly the same things in adults.

(2) Various people attacking the guy who posted it, saying he was creating fear and panic and the study was probably "bollocks," with no actual critique.

(3) Many people who also apparently didn't read the actual article saying that everyone knows viruses cause myocarditis, so why is this news.

(4) Several people linking to this one guy, Francois Balloux, whose incisive critique was as follows: "3 people who died had heart damage, likely before #COVID19 infection already. They also showed that the virus can kill cells in test tubes, but as someone mentioned, bathing the cells in orange juice would likely have had the same effect than 'virus juice'." Which again demonstrates a total lack of understanding of what the results actually show and an unwillingness to even read the paper. 

If anyone can find an actual scientific critique of the methods, materials, results, or conclusions of the UCSF research, please link it. Because so far this is all just people who can't even be bothered to read the damn study tweeting totally uninformed comments. 🙄

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

OK, I read through as much of that thread as I could and the only actual "critiques" I saw were:

(1) A post from someone who did not appear to have read the study who said that since the heart tissue was derived from stem cells, the findings only applied to neonates.But they found exactly the same things in adults.

(2) Various people attacking the guy who posted it, saying he was creating fear and panic and the study was probably "bollocks," with no actual critique.

(3) Many people who also apparently didn't read the actual article saying that everyone knows viruses cause myocarditis, so why is this news.

(4) Several people linking to this one guy, Francois Balloux, whose incisive critique was as follows: "3 people who died had heart damage, likely before #COVID19 infection already. They also showed that the virus can kill cells in test tubes, but as someone mentioned, bathing the cells in orange juice would likely have had the same effect than 'virus juice'." Which again demonstrates a total lack of understanding of what the results actually show and an unwillingness to even read the paper. 

If anyone can find an actual scientific critique of the methods, materials, results, or conclusions of the UCSF research, please link it. Because so far this is all just people who can't even be bothered to read the damn study tweeting totally uninformed comments. 🙄

That isn't what I linked so having trouble finding where it's directing you. For number 1 in your post, for example, he addresses that exact thing in the thread that you are taking issue with. He is a scientist offering scientific critique while also praising the paper on its merits.

For number four, Francious Balloux is the director of University College London genetics institute who has done extensive research on covid, not just some rando.

Most of the docs commenting are researchers/cardiologists/fellows/scientrandom. None of them are covid or science deniers. They tend to make fun of people who are or who promote "cures" like hcq or vitamins without rcts. Those are the people I'm reading, not random commenters in the threads, sorry if the links are not working properly. I have actually found really well reasoned discussion between researchers and docs and scientists on Twitter that has actually tempered a lot of the fear mongering I find in headlines. I see that you've already decided to dismiss it out of hand, or I've given bad links so the discussion isn't fully fleshed out, but it isn't all the nonsense you're making it out to be.

Edited by EmseB
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, EmseB said:

That isn't what I linked so having trouble finding where it's directing you. For number 1 in your post, for example, he addresses that exact thing in the thread that you are taking issue with. He is a scientist offering scientific critique while also praising the paper on its merits.

For number four, Francious Balloux is the director of University College London genetics institute who has done extensive research on covid, not just some rando.

Most of the docs commenting are researchers/cardiologists/fellows/scientrandom. None of them are covid or science deniers. They tend to make fun of people who are or who promote "cures" like hcq or vitamins without rcts. Those are the people I'm reading, not random commenters in the threads, sorry if the links are not working properly. I have actually found really well reasoned discussion between researchers and docs and scientists on Twitter that has actually tempered a lot of the fear mongering I find in headlines. I see that you've already decided to dismiss it out of hand, or I've given bad links so the discussion isn't fully fleshed out, but it isn't all the nonsense you're making it out to be.

I just read Balloux's entire twitter feed back to August 25th, when the UCSF study was first released, and the ONLY references I can find to the UCSF study are (1) a link to Darrell Francis's comment on the paper that he didn't read, and the comment I quoted above. There is no critique of the paper. He seems to have a beef with the person whose twitter feed he posted on (Eric Topol), as he made some personal comments about him, but Eric Topol had nothing to do with the UCSF research. He also seems to believe that Covid is strictly a respiratory disease that does not cause any cardiac damage other than what might occur with any other virus, and therefore any study that claims to show cardiac damage is by definition bogus. He frequently retweets comments (not research, but comments) by other cardiologists saying that they're not seeing any unusual cardiac damage and therefore covid is strictly a respiratory disease.  He may not be "just some rando" but his personal opinion does not outweigh the opinions of many other cardiologists and researchers who feel otherwise based on their own practices and research. 

Can you quote some of the critiques you can see in the twitter thread which specifically address the UCSF research? Because I cannot find one single critique of it. All I can find are claims like the ones below,  which refer to generic "adverse cardiac effects" and do not address the specific findings of the UCSF team. They're just saying "yeah, yeah, viruses can affect the heart, so what?" No one is citing evidence that that the very specific damage to heart muscle fibers the UCSF team found is not a potentially serious issue, or that the same thing is caused by many other diseases, or that their methodology was flawed. 

 

Screen Shot 2020-09-12 at 9.35.52 PM.png

Screen Shot 2020-09-12 at 9.32.57 PM.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, square_25 said:

You’re doing a lot of argument by authority in this thread. I agree that you’re linking real people who have the right to an opinion, but there are also real people who disagree.

Why can’t we agree that we don’t know yet and there’s cause for concern?? That seems like an extremely minimal statement. 

 

Out of curiosity, why does agreeing matter? 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, kdsuomi said:

CA has the lowest number of patients with COVID in the ICU and also in the hospital since early April, and the positivity rate is under 4%, so that's all good news. 

Glad you guys have some good news.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, square_25 said:

You’re doing a lot of argument by authority in this thread. I agree that you’re linking real people who have the right to an opinion, but there are also real people who disagree.

Why can’t we agree that we don’t know yet and there’s cause for concern?? That seems like an extremely minimal statement. 

I was responding to the critique that they were just random Twitter folks by giving their credentials. I responded to her points specifically. How can I respond that specific point without listing credentials?? I left this convo last night because I feel that you're now just picking apart things to disagree with for some reason I can't figure out. If I can't respond to a specific point about the people I'm linking (links that were asked for!) by explaining who they are, then I'm at a loss. Of course there are people who disagree! I was asked to provide links to the disagreements in this thread.

I don't know a lot of things. I do know that making billion dollar policy decisions affecting many lives based on headlines based on studies like these heart studies is something I disagree with. I also think that said headlines are putting fear into the hearts of many and after reading quite a bit, I think unnecessarily. I read many scientists and researchers who have informed that opinion and seen enough junk science pre-published and published in the last six months that I am not tending to lean the other way, but rather seen more sense in being wary of anything coming out about covid sequelae right now. I think this is a bad virus that is much worse for some people. I think anecdotes of said cases are unhelpful for informing public health policy which by it's very nature cannot continue on a covid-only approach. I think caution, masking, and distancing is prudent. 

I hope you and yours remain healthy, square_25. I don't know how to have this discussion with you though.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, EmseB said:

I was responding to the critique that they were just random Twitter folks by giving their credentials. I responded to her points specifically. How can I respond that specific point without listing credentials?? I left this convo last night because I feel that you're now just picking apart things to disagree with for some reason I can't figure out. If I can't respond to a specific point about the people I'm linking (links that were asked for!) by explaining who they are, then I'm at a loss. Of course there are people who disagree! I was asked to provide links to the disagreements in this thread.

I don't know a lot of things. I do know that making billion dollar policy decisions affecting many lives based on headlines based on studies like these heart studies is something I disagree with. I also think that said headlines are putting fear into the hearts of many and after reading quite a bit, I think unnecessarily. I read many scientists and researchers who have informed that opinion and seen enough junk science pre-published and published in the last six months that I am not tending to lean the other way, but rather seen more sense in being wary of anything coming out about covid sequelae right now. I think this is a bad virus that is much worse for some people. I think anecdotes of said cases are unhelpful for informing public health policy which by it's very nature cannot continue on a covid-only approach. I think caution, masking, and distancing is prudent. 

I hope you and yours remain healthy, square_25. I don't know how to have this discussion with you though.

I guess my question would be if there’s a chance that 25pc of people are experiencing heart damage are we better to err on the side of caution or not?

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

I guess my question would be if there’s a chance that 25pc of people are experiencing heart damage are we better to err on the side of caution or not?

I would want to know what you meant by erring on the side of caution, what you meant by "a chance", what is considered heart damage, and can we say definitively that covid is causing said damage or is the damage pre-existing and we see it because we are scanning people who have had covid. I would want to know what is damage relative to what happens to our hearts when we get any other myriad of viruses. Is it recoverable or permanent? So many questions based on what you are asking.

There are studies that find correlations between x and y all the time. In fact, a lot of that type of thinking and application of those studies and wanting to err on the side of caution is the heart of the anti-vax movement. It's profoundly unscientific, IMO, and not good for making public health policy that has to balance a ton of other factors.

Edited by EmseB
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, EmseB said:

I would want to know what you meant by erring on the side of caution, what you meant by "a chance", what is considered heart damage, and can we say definitively that covid is causing said damage or is the damage pre-existing and we see it because we are scanning people who have had covid. I would want to know what is damage relative to what happens to our hearts when we get any other myriad of viruses. Is it recoverable or permanent? So many questions based on what you are asking.

There are studies that find correlations between x and y all the time. In fact, a lot of that type of thinking and application of thise studies and wanting to err on the side of caution is the heart of the anti-vax movement. It's profoundly unscientific, IMO, and not good for making public health policy that has to balance a ton of other factors.

 

I was under the impression that current public health policy is based on not overwhelming the hospitals but I suppose some states could be doing things differently but I don't see a lot of them acting that way. Heck, Arizona just tried to work in more ability to expand or "surge" or whatever.

 

I appreciate that my city acted when we could see continually increases and an estimate to less than 6 weeks capacity last month and acted and currently we are on a downward trend but already open more as our Rt is less than 1. Don't know that it will stay that way but considering the US numbers I seriously doubt it's more than that in most states. I don't study every state though.

 

Part of the stories the media is pushing may be to convince the young people to cooperate. Partly, because other media outlets have basically told them if you aren't elderly or have big risk factors, it's no problem, which isn't true because no one knows and we do know many die or have long term damage, we just don't knowthe percentage.

The truth is we don't know. We should be telling people to think about spread, no matter your age, and do the things that get the most bang for your buck. Think and be helpful so the government isn't tempted to force you. 

 

It really appears most don't want to act until they see the hospitals over run already or they see first hand a bunch of deaths. It's like they can't look forward and project or understand exponential growth.  You have to keep growth down. No matter what if growth continues the problem will be harder, not easier to control. 

Edited by frogger
I swear my space bar is out to get me.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, EmseB said:

I would want to know what you meant by erring on the side of caution, what you meant by "a chance", what is considered heart damage, and can we say definitively that covid is causing said damage or is the damage pre-existing and we see it because we are scanning people who have had covid. I would want to know what is damage relative to what happens to our hearts when we get any other myriad of viruses. Is it recoverable or permanent? So many questions based on what you are asking.

There are studies that find correlations between x and y all the time. In fact, a lot of that type of thinking and application of those studies and wanting to err on the side of caution is the heart of the anti-vax movement. It's profoundly unscientific, IMO, and not good for making public health policy that has to balance a ton of other factors.

 

4 hours ago, EmseB said:

I would want to know what you meant by erring on the side of caution, what you meant by "a chance", what is considered heart damage, and can we say definitively that covid is causing said damage or is the damage pre-existing and we see it because we are scanning people who have had covid. I would want to know what is damage relative to what happens to our hearts when we get any other myriad of viruses. Is it recoverable or permanent? So many questions based on what you are asking.

There are studies that find correlations between x and y all the time. In fact, a lot of that type of thinking and application of those studies and wanting to err on the side of caution is the heart of the anti-vax movement. It's profoundly unscientific, IMO, and not good for making public health policy that has to balance a ton of other factors.

Err on the side of caution would mean encouraging athletes or anyone on an intense exercise program to get scanned and checked before returning to play.  At the same time as getting some data together on what the typical rate of myocarditis in athletes is.  If it doesn’t already exist.  It shouldn’t be that hard to get scans on 20-30 healthy volunteers for comparison, to at least get an idea if we’re looking for something.

and on an individual level I’m adding it to my list of reasons why I don’t want covid till we know a lot more about it.  Yes there’s lots of viruses that don’t have long lingering after effects.  There’s also a heck of a lot that do.

 

Edited by Ausmumof3
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

 

Err on the side of caution would mean encouraging athletes or anyone on an intense exercise program to get scanned and checked before returning to play.  At the same time as getting some data together on what the typical rate of myocarditis in athletes is.  If it doesn’t already exist.  It shouldn’t be that hard to get scans on 20-30 healthy volunteers for comparison, to at least get an idea if we’re looking for something.

 

Myocarditis in athletes (2019 publication)

https://m.oxfordmedicine.com/mobile/view/10.1093/med/9780198779742.001.0001/med-9780198779742-chapter-23

 

 

Quote

and on an individual level I’m adding it to my list of reasons why I don’t want covid till we know a lot more about it.  Yes there’s lots of viruses that don’t have long lingering after effects.  There’s also a heck of a lot that do.

 

 

If you knew a lot more, then you might decide that you do want it?   Probably not!

 

 

I do think it’s possible that some people who are on an edge deciding line between not sure if they want Covid or not / or not sure if they want to distance, wear masks, etc , could feel differently / behave differently based on the cardiovascular sequelae news. 

 

IRL I haven’t seen that this news is having much effect. But I am not in an elite athletics area. And local sports at all levels are pretty much all cancelled due to hazardous air quality from fires. 

 

(Btw, Afaik, my nephew who recovered from mild CV19 is not being limited in his participation in childhood activities including sports (though he is a normal active kid, not athlete) and his dad who is a cardiologist does not think it a concern. I expect that’s correct. Of course, time will tell. ETA  My cardiologist relative has seen really severe cardiac damage from CV19, and he does take it seriously.  (The family does mask, distance, etc. They also have good vitamin D status etc. ) Nonetheless, even though he takes it very seriously, has said it’s the worst illness he has dealt with since going into medicine, including some work abroad in epidemic areas, He is not acting like he thinks his son has a 25pc / 1 in 4 chance of having cardiomyopathy.) 

 

Edited by Pen
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, mom2scouts said:

I found out last night that my oldest is in a phase 3 vaccine trial. I'll let you know if I find out anything from him.

 

Thanks!  Did he say which vaccine? 

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

 

Thanks!  Did he say which vaccine? 

I'm not positive, but I think it's the one by Pfizer and BioNTech which seems to be promising right now. The trial is a double blind study so he doesn't know if he got the vaccine or a placebo. I know another trial by AstraZeneca recently shut down after a volunteer became very ill and he's not in that one.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, mom2scouts said:

I'm not positive, but I think it's the one by Pfizer and BioNTech which seems to be promising right now. The trial is a double blind study so he doesn't know if he got the vaccine or a placebo. I know another trial by AstraZeneca recently shut down after a volunteer became very ill and he's not in that one.

 

Thanks!    

Pfizer has one of the very interesting new modalities, using mRNA, iirc. 

AstraZeneca is back on iirc.

 

some places / trials are using another vaccine as placebo so that volunteers can’t guess based on lack of arm soreness or that sort of thing... others are using saline.    I am not sure if Pfizer is using other vaccine or plain saline for its comparison group 

 

I hope he does great and gets immunity if he has the real thing.

And thank him for volunteering!

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I’ve read, UK’s AstraZeneca study purposely tried to recruit people with more vulnerable health.

Their placebo is a meningitis vaccine, I think. Not sure.

The person who was hospitalized recently has been released from the hospital and is supposedly fine. I read that her problem was not related to the vaccine; however, the US is going to pause the AZ trial here for a few days to scrutinize data. Pauses are to be expected.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.09.20191031v1
 

ANU Study from July in Aus estimates infection rates at around 7 times higher than infected . The study hasn’t been peer reviewed yet and blood tests were taken from patients books for elective surgery so probably not a truly random sample (would probably expect those with contact with health care to potentially have higher infection rates due to the spread in healthcare settings).  Interesting though.  This was prior to Vics second wave in July.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, BeachGal said:

From what I’ve read, UK’s AstraZeneca study purposely tried to recruit people with more vulnerable health.

Their placebo is a meningitis vaccine, I think. Not sure.

The person who was hospitalized recently has been released from the hospital and is supposedly fine. I read that her problem was not related to the vaccine; however, the US is going to pause the AZ trial here for a few days to scrutinize data. Pauses are to be expected.

Yes meningococcal vaccine I think.  One reason for not releasing details of the event apparently is potential nocebo effect (where people start reporting side effects because they’re expecting those side effects).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/15/2020 at 4:56 AM, Pen said:

 

Thanks!    

Pfizer has one of the very interesting new modalities, using mRNA, iirc. 

AstraZeneca is back on iirc.

 

some places / trials are using another vaccine as placebo so that volunteers can’t guess based on lack of arm soreness or that sort of thing... others are using saline.    I am not sure if Pfizer is using other vaccine or plain saline for its comparison group 

 

I hope he does great and gets immunity if he has the real thing.

And thank him for volunteering!

I have read that the Pfizer vaccine requires deep freeze storage which will make it more complicated and expensive to roll out.  

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

I have read that the Pfizer vaccine requires deep freeze storage which will make it more complicated and expensive to roll out.  

 I read the same.   All the mRNA type possibly do.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

US passed 200,000 deaths on worldometer today.  

I just watched a clip on YouTube by an Australian Rowan Dean ?journalist, claiming that a review of studies of HCQ showed benefit. He then said that in some Australian states Drs would be jailed for prescribing it. I wondered if you had heard this and had any more information Ausmum?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TCB said:

I just watched a clip on YouTube by an Australian Rowan Dean ?journalist, claiming that a review of studies of HCQ showed benefit. He then said that in some Australian states Drs would be jailed for prescribing it. I wondered if you had heard this and had any more information Ausmum?

I haven’t heard that but it doesn’t seem to be recommended here anymore.  Prescription meds here are somewhat more restricted than the US I think because the government pays most of it rather than private health.  I’ll see if I can find out more.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, TCB said:

I just watched a clip on YouTube by an Australian Rowan Dean ?journalist, claiming that a review of studies of HCQ showed benefit. He then said that in some Australian states Drs would be jailed for prescribing it. I wondered if you had heard this and had any more information Ausmum?

Just for reference Rowan Dean appears to be a host for Sky news which is kinda our equivalent of Fox I guess.  Not that that means this is wrong necessarily but so you know what angle it’s coming from.  I’ll let you know if I find out anything about legislation on HCQ

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, square_25 said:

I haven’t seen a review showing benefit. I’ve seen very mixed studies... some show harm, some show benefit, some show nothing. The best-designed study, in my opinion, was the Minnesota one, and that one found neither harm nor benefit.

However, I’m open to being wrong 🙂. Any new studies out?

It wasn’t a new study just a meta analysis of existing studies. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pfizer released this good news to investors recently:

https://s21.q4cdn.com/317678438/files/doc_presentations/2020/09/Covid-19-Programs_FINAL.pdf
 

No serious or life-threatening events seen yet in phase 3.

From hearsay I’ve read online, the first dose might be enough. Just hearsay at this point but their vaccine might become available sooner than anticipated.

They’re working refrigeration kinks out now and plan to set up units where they’ll be vaccinating, if necessary. However, the vaccines are also viable for 15 days if stored with dry ice.

I'm on the road but thought y’all might like to read something positive.

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BeachGal said:

Pfizer released this good news to investors recently:

https://s21.q4cdn.com/317678438/files/doc_presentations/2020/09/Covid-19-Programs_FINAL.pdf
 

No serious or life-threatening events seen yet in phase 3.

From hearsay I’ve read online, the first dose might be enough. Just hearsay at this point but their vaccine might become available sooner than anticipated.

They’re working refrigeration kinks out now and plan to set up units where they’ll be vaccinating, if necessary. However, the vaccines are also viable for 15 days if stored with dry ice.

I'm on the road but thought y’all might like to read something positive.

Even if it doesn’t work logistically for everyone it might at least help for healthcare settings.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Seven imported cases today from international flights, all in quarantine. And zero community cases for the third day in a row.  Elimination v2 in progress. 

The government is hinting we will go as a country to level 1 alert on Monday, which is no restrictions at all.  However, my guess is that they will keep masks on public transport, and Auckland will be at a group limit of 100. 

 

Edited by lewelma
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the casinos here has a close partnership with the Health District and the results were just released. NV casinos opened on June 4. Dh knows two people whose wives work at casinos and tested positive and passed it onto their husbands...and possibly mine. 😒 We can't escape what happens on the strip. 

 

Quote

 

LAS VEGAS (KLAS) — Wynn Resorts Las Vegas is reporting there have been 548 positive cases of COVID-19 among employees leading up to and after the reopening of the property.

According to a news release from Wynn Resorts, the company has made a commitment to being transparent with its COVID-19 testing results to keep guests and employees informed.

The updated results of its testing an contact tracing program show that 15,051 employees have been tested. Fifty-one showed positive prior to the resort reopening on June 4. Another 497 cases were identified post-opening. Wynn Resorts said it has a 3.6% positivity rate which is “well below the US national average.”

“The Company has continued to see a significant downward trend in virus positivity rates since it began its multi-faceted Pre-employment and Surveillance Testing Programs.  In fact, in the recent round of Surveillance Testing conducted on September 11, only one out of 285 employees tested positive.”

WYNN LAS VEGAS NEWS RELEASE
The company said it’s dedicated 10 employees full-time to contact tracing for positive employees and its findings show that 98% of the employees contracted the virus outside of work. The company continues to test as many

More than 500,000 guests have stayed at the property since it reopened. Wynn Resorts said there have been six guests who tested positive. Those guests either had symptoms said they had a possible exposure and were tested.

Matt Maddox, CEO of Wynn Resorts said, “Our goal, by implementing our Surveillance Testing Program and establishing a robust in-house contact tracing effort, is to make Wynn Las Vegas the safest place our guests and employees can go outside of their own homes.”

https://www.8newsnow.com/news/local-news/wynn-resorts-reports-more-than-500-employees-have-tested-positive-for-covid-19

 

 

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Plum said:

One of the casinos here has a close partnership with the Health District and the results were just released. NV casinos opened on June 4. Dh knows two people whose wives work at casinos and tested positive and passed it onto their husbands...and possibly mine. 😒 We can't escape what happens on the strip. 

 

 

What I don't understand is how Walt Disney World and Universal have not caused spread. I yelled gloom and doom on the Dis board and now I look like a fool.  They are all like, "we are there and it is safe."

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Happymomof1 said:

What I don't understand is how Walt Disney World and Universal have not caused spread. I yelled gloom and doom on the Dis board and now I look like a fool.  They are all like, "we are there and it is safe."

I have a friend who's family went to Disney for a week, the day they opened.  

First, it's important to remember that SO SO much of Disney is outside.  Casinos are of course...not.

Also, Disney is operating on reduced numbers.  They are requiring reservations for each park each day, and are only allowing people to visit one park per day.....currently no park hoppers.  My friends, who are absolutely Disney CRAY CRAY and go multiple times a year, said it was absolutely amazing and refreshing to be able to move among the smaller crowds.

They are also SUPER strict about their mask and social distance policies.  The family that went said they had line monitors, park monitors etc...constantly watching for people who pulled masks down, who got to close etc.    

They have temporarily eliminated a lot of their close contact stuff...like character meetings, the free parades where everyone crowds together, etc.  They also have upgraded their ride reservation systems (that I didn't understand in the first place, so I can't elaborate much...only going based on what my friend said.)  so that the lines are just not the same.  

They also do have a lot of stuff closed.  I can't even remember all the things that my friend listed, but it's long, and much of it involves indoor/crowded space.

My friend intends to take her family back in November.  

  • Like 3
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...