Crazy (and not-so-crazy) shit about Covid-19

[roger hao]

He's in the rough.

[grzegorz]

Trump today...

Really? It might be fake, so I can't be upset. If real, the caption could be "Nero plays golf while America burns." However, it really won't make a difference if he plays every day or not.

Now, if I saw a picture of him in church ...

Not perfect but I normally verify my sources.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/23/politics ... index.html

(CNN)President Donald Trump on Saturday was seen golfing at his Virginia club, marking his first visit to one of his golf properties since March amid the coronavirus pandemic.

From USA Today.

Projecting normalcy, Trump leaves the White House to go golfing in Virginia

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 249716002/

[Trick]

Trump today...

Well they’re keepin safe distance

[grzegorz]

True that!

[Giles]

Just to clarify the significance of the major study on the effectiveness on (hydroxy)chloroquine, recently published in The Lancet and on which I posted an article on Saturday:

--> That study provided insight into the effectiveness of (hydroxy)chloroquine as a CURE for people who have become ill with Covid-19. And the result was pretty clear. It's not effective, and actually harmful (i.e. more people with Covid-19 die when they take it).

--> The other question, however, is whether this group of drugs can also be effective as a prophylaxis, meaning can it (help to) prevent you getting infected or developing symptoms in the first place? No significant (scientifically credible) results from studies on this question are yet available. And for obvious reasons this issue is harder to test reliably, and it will take much longer. Probably until the end of this year. For instance https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52737169

So regarding the drug's use as a way of preventing infection, there is currently no solid, scientifically substantiated (!!!) verdict one way or the other. But it's known that the drug(s) can have serious side effects.

[Steve James]

Taking it as a preventative would require billions of doses. Yikes, I'd prefer taking C, D complex, and zinc to hopefully boost my immunity rather than a drug to prevent catching a specific, notably non-lethal, virus. And, I'm in seemingly high risk group.

Will chloroquine work against a covid-20 or SARS-3? I'm unlikely to take it "and" a seasonal flu shot "and" a covid vaccine. Imo, the crucial thing now is preparation. For ex., even though the stats are dropping in NYC, the behaviors aren't and many of the temporary preparations have remained and may become permanent. Iow, if there's a recurrence, we'll be ready-er.

At any rate, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure --so it's said. It's much easier to prevent the spread than treat the sick. Imo, it also ends up costing less. It just costs more in the beginning, but look what lack of preparation has cost.

[Giles]

At any rate, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure --so it's said. It's much easier to prevent the spread than treat the sick. Imo, it also ends up costing less. It just costs more in the beginning, but look what lack of preparation has cost.

Very true. On the other hand, I think Peacedog pointed out convincingly that decision-makers/planners are often faced with many different "this disaster/emergency scenario could happen!" warnings, the great majority of which don't materialize (within a given, limited time period), so that normally the decision-makers pick and choose very much and take a more 'laid-back' approach. But on the other other hand, this pandemic has now cost the world such a huge amount, and at the same time many governments have suddenly been able to produce startlingly large sums to help offset the effects, that my impression is that there probably was and is enough money available to make solid contigency plans with corresponding resources for a big spectrum of credible threat scenarios simultaneously. And still get a good return on investment on the whole range of plans and resources at the end of the day, even if only one of these scenarios materializes - as has now happened.
But I can't back this up with economic data, of course. If indeed anybody could credibly at the moment...

[Giles]

... (double posting)

[Peacedog]

Yeah that's the thing. Making the right prediction in the appropriate time period.

When you are in the moment it is hard to make reasonable decisions based off of noise.

For example, at the first part of the epidemic there was the "we need ventilators!!!!" crowd screaming. All of the states had failed, and in some cases even eliminated their stockpiles, to keep the recommended number of these on hand. Talk of nationalizing businesses et cetera went on.

Then we found out that if you went on a ventilator while suffering from Covid-19 that you had an 88% chance of dying anyway. And some doctors speculate that the other 12% would have lived without the ventilator in the first place.

Emergency response is impossible to get right. Nut riders will complain in any event. The after action report is the most import part and we are at least two to three years out from that. If for no other reason that the hysterics in the crowd have to STFU first so the rational decision makers can make an informed and impartial decision.

[Steve James]

decision-makers/planners are often faced with many different "this disaster/emergency scenario could happen!" warnings, the great majority of which don't materialize (within a given, limited time period), so that normally the decision-makers pick and choose very much and take a more 'laid-back' approach.

Two or more issues involved. One, is decision making under conditions of uncertainty, and that is connected to the decision maker. Imo, the only leaders who count are the ones who take responsibility for the result of their decision. It's the difference between being in a position to tell others what to do and having good judgment.

Anyway, the Bush and Obama administrations had made "plans" for a possible pandemic. Even Mitch McConnell had to admit it. A plan, any plan, would have been better. And, that's why the issue of decision making under conditions of uncertainty don't apply here. The decisions made in response to the pandemic were political, not based on public health. The goal was not to save people. It's how to assure that the virus has the least effect on the economy and the election.

Anyone can be wrong. But, leaders are evaluated by the choices they make, and that is indirectly affected by the people leaders (i.e., decision makers) choose to listen to. I think the right leader for any unknown situation cannot suffer from Dunning Krueger and so fears he or she is not making the right decision. So, Eisenhower and Roosevelt wrote prepared statements to be delivered if D-Day failed.

Consequently, while I don't blame Trump (or anyone) for the virus, I can't agree that he was simply overwhelmed by choices. Anyone in his position would have the same choices; but, I can't believe that most would make the same decisions he did. He's kind of unique. Anyway, it's irrelevant since we can see the results.

[Steve James]

So, today he goes golfing and says he wants churches to open. He said he wanted them open for Easter.

Afa ventilators, again, they are "life support," not treatment. Hospitals wanted more ventilators at the beginning of the crisis because they feared there would be too many patients who needed one. It wasn't that ventilators were a way to treat covid-19. That said, it's likely that some early patients were put on ventilators unnecessarily. Those are usually people who can sustain lower O2 or higher CO2 blood levels.

A doctor's mistake, made while trying to save a life, without knowing precisely what will work, doesn't justify the poor judgment or mistake of a politician. Still, the one thing we know prevents the spread of the virus is keeping people away from each other. That means fewer people will go to the hospital at all, let alone to an ICU. The fewer the patients, the better the treatment, and no need to argue about politics.

[everything]

Data on co morbidities in COVID 19
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/a ... 200043.pdf

Hypertension is most common issue

[windwalker]

Hill said that of 10,000 people recruited to test the vaccine in the coming weeks — some of whom will be given a placebo — he expected fewer than 50 people to catch the virus. If fewer than 20 test positive, then the results might be useless, he warned.

"We're in the bizarre position of wanting COVID to stay, at least for a little while. But cases are declining."

https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/low ... 54vvu.html

Of the 10 vaccine candidates that have progressed to human trials globally, six are in China and it is the only country to have a candidate now firmly into phase two trials. That vaccine is being pioneered by the Chinese biotech firm CanSino Biologics and the Beijing Institute of Biotechnology. It utilises a "non-replicating viral-vector" design similar to the one being developed by Oxford University in England. The results of its phase one trial were reported in The Lancet on Friday.

High doses of the vaccine prompted a stronger immune response but it was also associated with greater side effects. "Severe fever, fatigue, dyspnoea, muscle pain, and joint pain were reported in some of the recipients in the high dose group," said the study.

[Michael]

Extensive collection of facts and sources on covid.

https://swprs.org/a-swiss-doctor-on-covid-19/

1. According to data from the best-studied countries and regions, the lethality of Covid19 is on average about 0.2%, which is in the range of a severe influenza (flu) and about twenty times lower than originally assumed by the WHO.

2. Even in the global “hotspots”, the risk of death for the general population of school and working age is typically in the range of a daily car ride to work. The risk was initially overestimated because many people with only mild or no symptoms were not taken into account.

3. Up to 80% of all test-positive persons remain symptom-free. Even among 70-79 year olds, about 60% remain symptom-free. Over 97% of all persons develop mild symptoms at most.

And 23 more.

[windwalker]

Extensive collection of facts and sources on covid.

https://swprs.org/a-swiss-doctor-on-covid-19/

1. According to data from the best-studied countries and regions, the lethality of Covid19 is on average about 0.2%, which is in the range of a severe influenza (flu) and about twenty times lower than originally assumed by the WHO.

2. Even in the global “hotspots”, the risk of death for the general population of school and working age is typically in the range of a daily car ride to work. The risk was initially overestimated because many people with only mild or no symptoms were not taken into account.

3. Up to 80% of all test-positive persons remain symptom-free. Even among 70-79 year olds, about 60% remain symptom-free. Over 97% of all persons develop mild symptoms at most.

And 23 more.

A real danger "80% of all test-positive persons remain symptom-free". this creates an environment were actions are being taken on a presumption of having it without it affecting those that may have or not, instead of focusing on the most affected groups as in all past pandemics which if one had it,
there was no question about it. One would be affected directly and take actions as needed.