COVID-19: The Scientific Progress Thread

[ElizabethB]

1 hour ago, Ktgrok said:

So, this says what I had read elsewhere...that antibody tests may cross react to the coronaviruses  that cause the common cold. And that a positive is, depending on the prevalence of the disease in a given area, possibly more likely to be a false positive than a true positive. https://www.idsociety.org/globalassets/idsa/public-health/covid-19/idsa-covid-19-antibody-testing-primer.pdf

Some of the poorly designed ones do cross react to some coronaviruses.  The Abbott test was tested against other coronaviruses and is very specific to the new Coronavirus, reacting against the Covid-19 almost exclusively, 99.6%.  

“It showed a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 99.6%,” said Alex Greniger, assistant director of the UW Virology Lab. “Diagnostically, this is one of the best tests we can offer,” he said.

https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/uw-starts-testing-people-with-covid-antibody-test-that-boasts-nearly-100-accuracy/RFCEDOCPVJEWPMYKUVSEVRRPYQ/

This article doesn't go into it much, but another article described how UW virology tested this test against thousands of old flu and cold swabs and only got a positive reaction with the current Coronavirus.  (Or basically only, 99.6%) 

Edited May 8, 2020 by ElizabethB

[Ausmumof3]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/05/07/blood-thinners-coronavirus-clots/#click=https://t.co/NowUReV7HE
 

Blood thinners may be linked to higher survival rates in seriously ill patients.  Not a controlled trial yet but a review of current data

[Laura Corin]

Award winning science podcast, currently concentrating on Covid

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p002vsnb

 

 

[ktgrok]

8 hours ago, ElizabethB said:

Some of the poorly designed ones do cross react to some coronaviruses.  The Abbott test was tested against other coronaviruses and is very specific to the new Coronavirus, reacting against the Covid-19 almost exclusively, 99.6%.  

“It showed a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 99.6%,” said Alex Greniger, assistant director of the UW Virology Lab. “Diagnostically, this is one of the best tests we can offer,” he said.

https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/uw-starts-testing-people-with-covid-antibody-test-that-boasts-nearly-100-accuracy/RFCEDOCPVJEWPMYKUVSEVRRPYQ/

This article doesn't go into it much, but another article described how UW virology tested this test against thousands of old flu and cold swabs and only got a positive reaction with the current Coronavirus.  (Or basically only, 99.6%) 

That's good to hear. I know that there is a huge range in quality of these tests, and supposedly about half the positives right now (from all tests) are expected to be false positives. Some tests out there claim 95% specificity or less.Which, given the low prevalence of the disease means that it produces more false positives than true positives.  https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2020/05/07/coronavirus-antibody-testing-doesnt-yet-provide-answers-immunity/3065105001/

[ktgrok]

Just now, square_25 said:

 

I just skimmed it, but I may be misunderstanding. However, do we actually have reasonable rates of cases or deaths from the non-northern latitudes?? As far as I can tell, those are most Africa, South America, and Australia/New Zealand. I don't expect good data out of Africa and South America, and Australia and New Zealand have a MUCH easier time closing borders and isolating people than other places. 

I can say that Florida and Louisiana have been hard hit, and although not equatorial, certainly where one would expect more sun exposure. The problem of course is that people stay inside there anyway...which is one reason the whole idea of it "going away" in the summer when it is hot/humid doesn't really make sense for this area. We just stay in the air conditioning anyway.

So....no, lol. good data from places that are southern AND people go outside? Not sure we have that. 

[Pen]

2 hours ago, square_25 said:

 

I just skimmed it, but I may be misunderstanding. However, do we actually have reasonable rates of cases or deaths from the non-northern latitudes?? As far as I can tell, those are most Africa, South America, and Australia/New Zealand. I don't expect good data out of Africa and South America, and Australia and New Zealand have a MUCH easier time closing borders and isolating people than other places. 

 

Some of South America has pretty decent ability to keep records—and was not overwhelmed to where that’s close to impossible.  Africa probably not. 

New Zealand I think can be eliminated as having in many ways just been lucky.

But Australia has a ton of tourism and international movement and had roughly the same level of identified cases as USA early on.  It is very possible that there was substantially less rapid spreading in Australia than in USA. 

 

—————

 

Not as study criticism or opposite, but 

Hawaii, similar to Australia has a ton of international travel and has done well.  Island aspects may help, but in fact, tourists are still going to Hawaii and often aren’t abiding by quarantine rules, to distress of locals.  

Still, for both Australia and Hawaii, even though both islands, it seems like something, Vitamin D status, weather, helped to not have huge outbreaks unlike, say, UK, which is also basically an island country. 

 

Personally, I found the Raimund von Heldon explanation of how Vitamin D would help, back toward the start of the Not yet “pandemic,” plus now more recently as it has developed into a pandemic, the findings that the darker the skin color the higher the death rate (or even infection rate perhaps) from CV19 within same country or region, and even when adjusted for socioeconomic factors already persuasive. 

[cintinative]

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41585-020-0319-7?fbclid=IwAR3MzwmBDdBcDBDKAGd4xu9U7WW_gFmmcpnup1tRiLhRxnra1y-DPjSGVZo

"Conclusion:
Clinical symptoms of COVID-19 predominantly present in the respiratory system, but particular attention should be given to urogenital manifestations and/or complications. Older people with CKD are at increased risk of severe infection and AKI is associated with high mortality. Thus, monitoring the kidney function of patients with severe COVID-19 is of great importance, and CRRT for protecting kidney function and cytokine removal for patients who are critically ill could be crucial to improving recovery. The blood–testis barrier does not protect against COVID-19 and abnormal expression of sex hormones could be a result of impaired gonadal function. After recovery from COVID-19, young men who are interested in having children should receive a consultation regarding their fertility."

Edited May 8, 2020 by cintinative

[Ausmumof3]

8 hours ago, Pen said:

 

Some of South America has pretty decent ability to keep records—and was not overwhelmed to where that’s close to impossible.  Africa probably not. 

New Zealand I think can be eliminated as having in many ways just been lucky.

But Australia has a ton of tourism and international movement and had roughly the same level of identified cases as USA early on.  It is very possible that there was substantially less rapid spreading in Australia than in USA. 

 

—————

 

Not as study criticism or opposite, but 

Hawaii, similar to Australia has a ton of international travel and has done well.  Island aspects may help, but in fact, tourists are still going to Hawaii and often aren’t abiding by quarantine rules, to distress of locals.  

Still, for both Australia and Hawaii, even though both islands, it seems like something, Vitamin D status, weather, helped to not have huge outbreaks unlike, say, UK, which is also basically an island country. 

 

Personally, I found the Raimund von Heldon explanation of how Vitamin D would help, back toward the start of the Not yet “pandemic,” plus now more recently as it has developed into a pandemic, the findings that the darker the skin color the higher the death rate (or even infection rate perhaps) from CV19 within same country or region, and even when adjusted for socioeconomic factors already persuasive. 

I agree with you I suspect it is somewhat climate related.  The other difference is we were able to increase the number of tests per capita much earlier because we have a much smaller population.  Plus lower population density. Testing plus contact tracing seems to be effective.  We have also closed state borders.

I don’t have any proof of this but I also suspect the population here are more on board with social distancing etc so people were starting to do that before things got bad.

[Liz CA]

Haven't had time to keep with this thread..do we know of an antibody test yet that is reliable and do we know if antibodies can protect against recurrence?

[Ausmumof3]

34 minutes ago, Liz CA said:

Haven't had time to keep with this thread..do we know of an antibody test yet that is reliable and do we know if antibodies can protect against recurrence?

https://www.roche.com/media/releases/med-cor-2020-05-03.htm
 

I think this one is the most accurate so far with 99.8pc sensitivity and 100pc specificity 

[ktgrok]

On 5/8/2020 at 6:12 PM, cintinative said:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41585-020-0319-7?fbclid=IwAR3MzwmBDdBcDBDKAGd4xu9U7WW_gFmmcpnup1tRiLhRxnra1y-DPjSGVZo

"Conclusion:
Clinical symptoms of COVID-19 predominantly present in the respiratory system, but particular attention should be given to urogenital manifestations and/or complications. Older people with CKD are at increased risk of severe infection and AKI is associated with high mortality. Thus, monitoring the kidney function of patients with severe COVID-19 is of great importance, and CRRT for protecting kidney function and cytokine removal for patients who are critically ill could be crucial to improving recovery. The blood–testis barrier does not protect against COVID-19 and abnormal expression of sex hormones could be a result of impaired gonadal function. After recovery from COVID-19, young men who are interested in having children should receive a consultation regarding their fertility."

Wow. If this is causing infertility in the younger people that get it, that totally changes some of the thoughts around "better to get it younger" and "not serious in young people". And we dont' know, because no one is checking really, we didn't even think to. 

19 hours ago, Liz CA said:

Haven't had time to keep with this thread..do we know of an antibody test yet that is reliable and do we know if antibodies can protect against recurrence?

Some tests are pretty reliable, but no, we do not know which particular antibodies are needed for immunity, in what quantity, or how long any immunity lasts. 

[cintinative]

15 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Wow. If this is causing infertility in the younger people that get it, that totally changes some of the thoughts around "better to get it younger" and "not serious in young people". And we dont' know, because no one is checking really, we didn't even think to. 

 

It's one of those things where I just hope they are wrong, but you are absolutely right. There is just so much we don't know about the long term impacts of COVID. We're busy trying to deal with the short-term ones. 

[Robin M]

Forgive me if someone has already posted this.  The Risks - Know Them - Avoid them about assessing your risk of exposure.

[Laura Corin]

On 5/8/2020 at 5:03 PM, Pen said:

 

Hawaii, similar to Australia has a ton of international travel and has done well.  Island aspects may help, but in fact, tourists are still going to Hawaii and often aren’t abiding by quarantine rules, to distress of locals.  

Still, for both Australia and Hawaii, even though both islands, it seems like something, Vitamin D status, weather, helped to not have huge outbreaks unlike, say, UK, which is also basically an island country. 

Other aspects of the UK disaster, as in New York, are population density and extremely busy international hub airports. One of London's airports, Heathrow, was the busiest in Europe.

[Pam in CT]

1 hour ago, Laura Corin said:

Other aspects of the UK disaster, as in New York, are population density and extremely busy international hub airports. One of London's airports, Heathrow, was the busiest in Europe.

And I'd imagine the utilization /  dependency upon public transit systems for people to get anywhere -- including work in essential places like hospitals -- is also high? 

The vast majority of New York City residents don't even have a car. (In ordinary times, you can't park during the day, and driving in Manhattan traffic takes manifold times the subway times.)  And people live too far-flung to walk, many in the outer boroughs. So in addition to the airports, it community-transmitted very fast in Feb-first weeks of March, and even after shutdown the medical workers and other essential workers have had no option but to continue to take public transit.

[EmseB]

Has anyone picked apart this analysis of super spreader events and modes of transmission?

The author is pretty transparent about his limitations and such so there are a lot of caveats up front.

[Ausmumof3]

6 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

Wow. If this is causing infertility in the younger people that get it, that totally changes some of the thoughts around "better to get it younger" and "not serious in young people". And we dont' know, because no one is checking really, we didn't even think to. 

Some tests are pretty reliable, but no, we do not know which particular antibodies are needed for immunity, in what quantity, or how long any immunity lasts. 

Chinese researchers have raised that concern from early on though.  We just haven’t been listening.

[ktgrok]

2 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Chinese researchers have raised that concern from early on though.  We just haven’t been listening.

Well, there goes my theory that if the mostly male politicians making decisions think it might effect the family jewels they may pay more attention. Sigh. 

[Laura Corin]

7 hours ago, Pam in CT said:

And I'd imagine the utilization /  dependency upon public transit systems for people to get anywhere -- including work in essential places like hospitals -- is also high? 

The vast majority of New York City residents don't even have a car. (In ordinary times, you can't park during the day, and driving in Manhattan traffic takes manifold times the subway times.)  And people live too far-flung to walk, many in the outer boroughs. So in addition to the airports, it community-transmitted very fast in Feb-first weeks of March, and even after shutdown the medical workers and other essential workers have had no option but to continue to take public transit.

Yes, you're right.

[Laura Corin]

9 hours ago, Laura Corin said:

Yes, you're right.

@Pam in CT the Prime Minister yesterday asked people to go back to work if they could safely and with social distancing (whether this is possible for many people is another issue) but to walk, cycle or drive to work if at all possible, avoiding public transport.

[Laura Corin]

https://covid.joinzoe.com/post/detecting-covid-without-a-test?fbclid=IwAR3cyK2f26ZiTdVd-NSKmCWzpwUBSK6S9YZ_UTpni9_9RLAhgER_GALy7yE

Covid detection using AI

[JennyD]

Israeli doctors are being more cautious in use of ventilators with severe Covid-19 patients, but they disagree about the underlying logic of the disease and why ventilators should be used more sparingly.  

 

[ktgrok]

On 5/10/2020 at 10:49 PM, Plum said:

Fever has been known to cause temporary to permanent infertility. There have been several studies on this in men specifically.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to analyse the effect of a history of febrile illness on semen quality.

Yes, but the article about Covid  19 and fertility was showing infection of the testes, more like measles, as opposed to just raised body temperature, from what I could tell. Measles can have lifelong fertility issues, versus the USUALLY temporary issues from raised body temperature. 

Edited May 13, 2020 by Ktgrok

[Halftime Hope]

On 4/23/2020 at 9:32 PM, Pen said:

 

 

~ only ~ 26.6 % of the of the non hydroxychloroquine cohort had  lower than normal pulse Oximeter levels   (Almost 75% had normal levels as 95 % or higher.) 

~42.5 % of the Hydroxychloroquine plus Azithromycin cohort had lower than normal pulse zOximeter levels

~ 37.1 % of the hydroxychloroquine alone cohort had lower than normal  levels. 

That’s a significant study flaw. Imo. 

I would expect the people with normal O2 levels to mostly do okay regardless of treatment so having the no Hydroxychloroquine group start with 75% having normal lung function means that doing far better in final outcome would certainly be expected.

any math person ( @square_25 ? ) able to take this on as what would be the expectation after adjusting for that huge discrepancy in sickness level?  

 

The doc on MedCram covered this study.  He noted that from all the other markers listed, it was clear that the groups given the HCQ was much sicker than the other groups.  To me, that would skew the results and mean that we didn't have a true or fair picture of how effective it might be.  (I have not read further in this thread.) 

[Pen]

13 minutes ago, Halftime Hope said:

The doc on MedCram covered this study.  He noted that from all the other markers listed, it was clear that the groups given the HCQ was much sicker than the other groups.  To me, that would skew the results and mean that we didn't have a true or fair picture of how effective it might be.  (I have not read further in this thread.) 

 

Every hcq  study I have been able to access and read, the hcq group has been sicker. 

[Skippy]

A recent study with the DOD showed that the flu vaccine may increase the risk of coronavirus. (This is not necessarily and not specifically COVID-19 but coronavirus in general. This study was completed previous to the COVID-19 outbreak. More studies need to be done.)

"...the odds of both coronavirus and human metapneumovirus in vaccinated individuals were significantly higher when compared to unvaccinated individuals (OR = 1.36 and 1.51, respectively)."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X19313647?via%3Dihub#!

[cintinative]

29 minutes ago, Skippy said:

A recent study with the DOD showed that the flu vaccine may increase the risk of coronavirus. (This is not necessarily and not specifically COVID-19 but coronavirus in general. This study was completed previous to the COVID-19 outbreak. More studies need to be done.)

"...the odds of both coronavirus and human metapneumovirus in vaccinated individuals were significantly higher when compared to unvaccinated individuals (OR = 1.36 and 1.51, respectively)."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X19313647?via%3Dihub#!

 

I'm confused. This is in the conclusion: "The overall results of the study showed little to no evidence supporting the association of virus interference and influenza vaccination. Individual respiratory virus results were mixed, and some rebutted virus interference. Additionally those receiving the influenza vaccine were more likely to have no pathogen detected and reduced risk of influenza when compared to unvaccinated individuals. Further research is necessary to help character virus interference and validate or refute the validity of the test-negative design for influenza vaccine effectiveness."

Also, this was posted before COVID-19 was broadly studied. So which Coronaviruses were included? 

[EmseB]

2 minutes ago, cintinative said:

 

I'm confused. This is in the conclusion: "The overall results of the study showed little to no evidence supporting the association of virus interference and influenza vaccination. Individual respiratory virus results were mixed, and some rebutted virus interference. Additionally those receiving the influenza vaccine were more likely to have no pathogen detected and reduced risk of influenza when compared to unvaccinated individuals. Further research is necessary to help character virus interference and validate or refute the validity of the test-negative design for influenza vaccine effectiveness."

Also, this was posted before COVID-19 was broadly studied. So which Coronaviruses were included? 

Yes, this is making the anti-vaxer rounds on FB

 

[Skippy]

45 minutes ago, cintinative said:

 

I'm confused. This is in the conclusion: "The overall results of the study showed little to no evidence supporting the association of virus interference and influenza vaccination. Individual respiratory virus results were mixed, and some rebutted virus interference. Additionally those receiving the influenza vaccine were more likely to have no pathogen detected and reduced risk of influenza when compared to unvaccinated individuals. Further research is necessary to help character virus interference and validate or refute the validity of the test-negative design for influenza vaccine effectiveness."

Also, this was posted before COVID-19 was broadly studied. So which Coronaviruses were included? 

This is not really an anti-vaccination study. In fact the results for interference were mostly positive or neutral, but specifically for coronaviruses (in general) the interference was harmful according to this study (1.36). You're right about COVID-19, and that is why I specifically stated that it was prior to the outbreak and that I am hopeful that more study will be done. I hope this clears up the confusion. 

[TCB]

42 minutes ago, Skippy said:

This is not really an anti-vaccination study. In fact the results for interference were mostly positive or neutral, but specifically for coronaviruses (in general) the interference was harmful according to this study (1.36). You're right about COVID-19, and that is why I specifically stated that it was prior to the outbreak and that I am hopeful that more study will be done. I hope this clears up the confusion. 

I’m pretty sure I read in one of the Plandemic rebuttal articles that there were other similar studies that did not find the link with coronavirus, so I think it’s still unclear.

[cintinative]

https://english.elpais.com/society/2020-05-14/antibody-study-shows-just-5-of-spaniards-have-contracted-the-coronavirus.html?fbclid=IwAR3I5hpxIXBLkekiauWIHowY0rAAhEvaxRo6u4zGU1bZJDjHAi376Q6Wp6k
 

Antibody study shows just 5% of Spaniards have contracted the coronavirus
70,000 person study

Edited May 15, 2020 by cintinative

[ktgrok]

57 minutes ago, cintinative said:

https://english.elpais.com/society/2020-05-14/antibody-study-shows-just-5-of-spaniards-have-contracted-the-coronavirus.html?fbclid=IwAR3I5hpxIXBLkekiauWIHowY0rAAhEvaxRo6u4zGU1bZJDjHAi376Q6Wp6k
 

Antibody study shows just 5% of Spaniards have contracted the coronavirus
70,000 person study

Regarding children not having antibodies, my understanding is they were not allowed out, at all, during the lock down. They are JUST now letting children of a certain age cut off go outside. So it makes sense they'd be showing less rates of infection.

"If the percentage of infected people who eventually die is around 1.1%, as the study suggests, the cost in human lives of herd immunity would be between 200,000 and 300,000, making the method unacceptable. Epidemiologists consulted by this newspaper said that social distancing measures must remain in place until a vaccine becomes available."

 

Edited May 15, 2020 by Ktgrok

[Halftime Hope]

Boo, yah!  MedCram #71    Retrospective study from NYC on adding zinc to HCQ and AZ.  Shows statistically significant positive results, and he mentions that a double-blind study is under way.  Hooray!  And yes, he also mentions that it is apparent that this treatment is effective, but only if administered early.  Finally!!!  

If this gets widespread press, this is a game-changer.   

He flat out mentions having YT remove videos, due to their automated screening bots, so I'll link it, but it may not be there for long.  (He mentions this, but there's no attitude or conspiracy theory rant; it's just a matter of fact.  This is why I really, really, enjoy his channel.  😉  )

If you can't find the video, look on Medcram  website where YT can't remove it. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZq-K1wpur8

 

 

 

[Pen]

Same topic as the Medcram  #71 in @Halftime Hope post above

 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.02.20080036v1

pre print of study available for download

zinc plus Hydroxychloroquine   (Azithromycin) early enough - improved results

 

 

 

 

Edited May 16, 2020 by Pen

[Pen]

A couple prior Medcram videos in which he discusses glutathione and N acetylcysteine — I think #s 69 and 70 are also worthwhile IMO. 

 

[ktgrok]

3 hours ago, Pen said:

Same topic as the Medcram  #71 in @Halftime Hope post above

 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.02.20080036v1

pre print of study available for download

zinc plus Hydroxychloroquine   (Azithromycin) early enough - improved results

 

 

 

 

Can someone with more statistics knowledge (or more coffee on board) explain what the OR indicated here means? I'm trying to understand how much of a difference this was. 

"After adjusting for the time at which zinc sulfate was added to our protocol, an increased frequency of being discharged home (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.12-2.09) reduction in mortality or transfer to hospice remained significant (OR 0.449, 95% CI 0.271-0.744). Conclusion: This study provides the first in vivo evidence that zinc sulfate in combination with hydroxychloroquine may play a role in therapeutic management for COVID-19. "

[Pen]

2 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

Can someone with more statistics knowledge (or more coffee on board) explain what the OR indicated here means? I'm trying to understand how much of a difference this was. 

"After adjusting for the time at which zinc sulfate was added to our protocol, an increased frequency of being discharged home (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.12-2.09) reduction in mortality or transfer to hospice remained significant (OR 0.449, 95% CI 0.271-0.744). Conclusion: This study provides the first in vivo evidence that zinc sulfate in combination with hydroxychloroquine may play a role in therapeutic management for COVID-19. "

 

I probably need someone stronger on stats and with more coffee on board too.

They are figures from statistics OR is odds ratio

 

the likelihood that it is going to be one outcome versus another. 

Cl is confidence level. 

They are not themselves the actual difference it made, because it is statistically adjusted numbers after adjusting for whatever they adjusted for. 

[It was roughly half as many (by percent — like 8% dead versus 16 % dead ) as best I recall that died if they had the zinc plus HCL plus azithromycin — if it was early enough.  Once in ICU it no longer was statistically significant, iirc.  ]

So after the adjustment but now I do need a statistics person or someone with coffee on board— it was 1.5 ? Times oops ?better odds of being discharged to home ...   as not being discharged to home. Thank 

Or for the 0.449 OR and remembering the 8% versus 16% figures I think that would be that people are 44% as likely to die or end up in hospice. 

Edited May 16, 2020 by Pen

[Halftime Hope]

I've been listening to the JAMA channel, and what's going on there is so discouraging.  This morning's gem was, "physicians should be encouraged NOT to TREAT with HCQ unless the patient is enrolled in a study."  The bureaucrats are all over this here in TX, with overreach by state pharmacy boards, making it very intimidating to any physician wants to prescribe this for outpatient care.  Literally, you are on your own, until it's too late and you're so sick you are able to be admitted to the hospital.  

By contrast, HCQ is being widely used in India and other countries for prophylactic care of family members when one has been diagnosed with COVID.  And I believe Japan just donated 60,000 doses of it to Kazakhstan for their use.  

Some of their other stuff, immunity passports and frameworks for rationing care and resources, is equally concerning. 

 

Edited May 16, 2020 by Halftime Hope

[ktgrok]

In really good news, it is looking more and more like prolonged contact is the main driver of spread - which would mean things like shopping, packages, walking past someone briefly, etc are not a risk. That's good for retail. Especially if we protect the retail workers themselves better. 

Not good for office buildings, factories, schools, churches, etc though. 

And the greatest risk was prolonged contact within familes and family gatherings. So birthday parties, etc. Which, ugh. 

But...if I can manage in my family to have minimal contact with outside world other than those low risk situations, than perhaps it will be safe to visit my mom, if we hug briefly than hang out outside, 6 ft away. 

Problem is, my son starts work tomorrow, in person. I wonder if I should see if my mom wants a visit today, before that starts. or tommorrow before he gets home. 

Edited May 19, 2020 by Ktgrok

[Ausmumof3]

On 5/16/2020 at 6:38 PM, Pen said:

Same topic as the Medcram  #71 in @Halftime Hope post above

 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.02.20080036v1

pre print of study available for download

zinc plus Hydroxychloroquine   (Azithromycin) early enough - improved results

 

 

 

 

Has anyone done a separate study on just zinc?

i ask because I believe I’ve noticed a difference between using just elderberry versus elderberry plus zinc and I’m wondering how big an impact the zinc has (its also much easier to have on hand without a prescription)

[Ausmumof3]

On 5/17/2020 at 3:58 AM, Halftime Hope said:

I've been listening to the JAMA channel, and what's going on there is so discouraging.  This morning's gem was, "physicians should be encouraged NOT to TREAT with HCQ unless the patient is enrolled in a study."  The bureaucrats are all over this here in TX, with overreach by state pharmacy boards, making it very intimidating to any physician wants to prescribe this for outpatient care.  Literally, you are on your own, until it's too late and you're so sick you are able to be admitted to the hospital.  

By contrast, HCQ is being widely used in India and other countries for prophylactic care of family members when one has been diagnosed with COVID.  And I believe Japan just donated 60,000 doses of it to Kazakhstan for their use.  

Some of their other stuff, immunity passports and frameworks for rationing care and resources, is equally concerning. 

 

I believe that may be because of the increased risk of heart problems?  So if taking it they should be under medical supervision and monitored for signs of arrhythmia or something?  There was an article on science about it I can try and dig up if you’re interested.

[Kanin]

1 hour ago, Ktgrok said:

In really good news, it is looking more and more like prolonged contact is the main driver of spread - which would mean things like shopping, packages, walking past someone briefly, etc are not a risk. That's good for retail. Especially if we protect the retail workers themselves better. 

 

This would be awesome! I just want to go to the grocery store without being totally frazzled. Do you have something I can read about this?

[Pam in CT]

On 5/14/2020 at 11:09 PM, Ktgrok said:

Regarding children not having antibodies, my understanding is they were not allowed out, at all, during the lock down. They are JUST now letting children of a certain age cut off go outside. So it makes sense they'd be showing less rates of infection.

"If the percentage of infected people who eventually die is around 1.1%, as the study suggests, the cost in human lives of herd immunity would be between 200,000 and 300,000, making the method unacceptable. Epidemiologists consulted by this newspaper said that social distancing measures must remain in place until a vaccine becomes available."

 

That would be the cost of human lives in Spain. 

The comparable number in the US -- 1.1% of the US population of ~330 million -- would be 3.6 million dead Americans.  (plus a whole lot more catastrophic medical bills/household bankruptcies and downstream long term health complications for the so-called "mild case" hospitalizations.)

[Pen]

On 5/19/2020 at 6:08 AM, Ausmumof3 said:

Has anyone done a separate study on just zinc?

i ask because I believe I’ve noticed a difference between using just elderberry versus elderberry plus zinc and I’m wondering how big an impact the zinc has (its also much easier to have on hand without a prescription)

 

Zinc alone does not readily get into the cells where it is needed to fight a coronavirus, is my understanding.  It needs a zinc ionophore so that it can cross over cell membranes. 

However, steadily keeping zinc level at a “normal” rather than deficient or borderline level might be helpful not to get sick in first place. There are indications of that related to zinc and other viral infections, particularly coronavirus.  (With dengue fever, zinc at certain times in course of illness might have aided the virus, while at others it may have helped fight it, though, so not necessarily universal benefit.) 

 

https://swietylukasz.pl/en/2020/03/20/zinc-and-covid-19-infection/

 

 

https://www.uchealth.org/today/zinc-could-help-diminish-extent-of-covid-19/

 

Btw, I think elderberry has a high amount of natural flavonoids (including Quercitin) that are themselves zinc ionophores.   Several berries do.  It think includes elderberry. Also apples.  Lots of vegetables such as kale do too. 

(Irl I know people who felt they were helped —saved actually— by HCL without added zinc, but they may have already had sufficient zinc levels such that the HCL helped it get where it needed to be without adding any extra. Zinc levels were not evaluated.) 

 

Edited May 20, 2020 by Pen

[JennyD]

Small, preliminary but reassuring study about the spread of the virus (or lack thereof) via surfaces.

(Xposted to main thread, and will I update whenever the second set of results is released.)

Edited May 20, 2020 by JennyD

[Laura Corin]

Covid and supplements. 

https://covid.joinzoe.com/post/vitamin-supplements-covid

This is the bio of the writer: https://www.kcl.ac.uk/lsm/Schools/life-course-sciences/departments/twin-research-and-genetic-epidemiology/about/people/spector

FWIW, we high but not ultra-high Vitamin D anyway, as recommended by the Scottish government, because we are very far north.  The general scientific paper about Vitamin D overdose is interesting in that it touches on poor quality control in vitamin supplements leading to the risk of overdose: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5980613/

'Similarly, a US study 25 demonstrated that, of the 15 vitamin D3 preparations analysed, there was substantial variation compared with the stated dose, both in pills from the same bottle (52–136% of expected dose) and between separate preparations (9–140% of stated dose). Only one‐third of the pills analysed were within 10% of the stated dose. Of these, the licensed products revealed the greatest accuracy and least variation with the stated dose. Similarly, an Indian study revealed that, of 14 commonly used preparations, only four were found to be within the accepted 90–125% of stated dose, defined by the Indian Pharmacopeia 26. Furthermore, US studies on the fortification of foods with vitamin D have also revealed wide variations from the stated dose as nutritional products are not as well regulated as medicines.

While the problematic manufacture of vitamin D products may at first appear trivial, such inaccuracies appear to be responsible for the majority of cases of vitamin D toxicity reported in the literature (Table 2).'

 

 

[TCB]

On 5/16/2020 at 1:28 PM, Halftime Hope said:

I've been listening to the JAMA channel, and what's going on there is so discouraging.  This morning's gem was, "physicians should be encouraged NOT to TREAT with HCQ unless the patient is enrolled in a study."  The bureaucrats are all over this here in TX, with overreach by state pharmacy boards, making it very intimidating to any physician wants to prescribe this for outpatient care.  Literally, you are on your own, until it's too late and you're so sick you are able to be admitted to the hospital.  

By contrast, HCQ is being widely used in India and other countries for prophylactic care of family members when one has been diagnosed with COVID.  And I believe Japan just donated 60,000 doses of it to Kazakhstan for their use.  

Some of their other stuff, immunity passports and frameworks for rationing care and resources, is equally concerning. 

 

I do kind of get the thing about trying this in randomized controlled trials first though. It should be fairly quick to do and safer. The study with the zinc added compares to the group getting HCQ and Azithromycin but isn't compared to a true control group. If the HCQ + Azith. does not help when given alone, which I think is what some other studies seem to be finding, then giving it may only expose the patient to the possible negative cardiac effect of prolonged QT interval. I think the thing with prolonged QT with Covid is we don't know how risky that is for these patients. It may be a low risk drug when your cardiac function is ok, but maybe not with the cardiac problems that seem to come with Covid for some. I think the general principle holds true that it is way safer to do a RCT with a possible treatment. 

[Martha in GA]

About reinfection and asymptomatic carriers

Sounds like maybe the COVID19 test can't distinguish between dead and live viruses?

Also, this has already been reported somewhere in this thread, but maybe we don't really have asymptomatic spreaders? I think, in general, people are generally able to spread viruses before they feel sick, so this would be more of the same?

[ktgrok]

1 hour ago, Martha in GA said:

About reinfection and asymptomatic carriers

Sounds like maybe the COVID19 test can't distinguish between dead and live viruses?

Also, this has already been reported somewhere in this thread, but maybe we don't really have asymptomatic spreaders? I think, in general, people are generally able to spread viruses before they feel sick, so this would be more of the same?

They have actually tested how much virus is in people's nasal secrections, etc and found that just before they start with symptoms up to when they start with the most mild symptoms is when they have the highest viral load and are likely the most contagious. 

Your last sentence confuses me? Yes, people can spread an illness before they feel sick, but they can also spread it without feeling sick, or having such mild symptoms they don't realize they are sick. And then not a virus, but we do know that people with say, strep can be asymptomatic and spread it. 

Also...Mercola...so yeah.....kind of known for twisting things to make them look as if they mean something they don't. 

That said, the people who tested positive after recovering do seem to just have some dead virus, so not contagious. But, we haven't tested that many of them to know for sure, and we know pretty much nothing as to what kind of immunity they have. 

[EmseB]

On 5/16/2020 at 11:28 AM, Halftime Hope said:

I've been listening to the JAMA channel, and what's going on there is so discouraging.  This morning's gem was, "physicians should be encouraged NOT to TREAT with HCQ unless the patient is enrolled in a study."  The bureaucrats are all over this here in TX, with overreach by state pharmacy boards, making it very intimidating to any physician wants to prescribe this for outpatient care.  Literally, you are on your own, until it's too late and you're so sick you are able to be admitted to the hospital.  

By contrast, HCQ is being widely used in India and other countries for prophylactic care of family members when one has been diagnosed with COVID.  And I believe Japan just donated 60,000 doses of it to Kazakhstan for their use.  

Some of their other stuff, immunity passports and frameworks for rationing care and resources, is equally concerning. 

 

I just heard a doc talking on NPR who was frustrated by this as well. It's been interesting listening to their reporting, touting the dangers and ineffectiveness vis a vis the president taking it prophylacticly (yesterday), and then today there was a story about people are pulling out of clinical trials because of that. And the doctor on today was saying, look, every drug has risks but we need to do the studies.