- #3,396
kadiot
- 282
- 82
What's your thought about the 14-day Covid-19 symptom-based test to clear persons to return to work?
The statement clearly refers to the majority of deaths. We also had someone saying "people who would have died in June died in April" or something like that earlier in this thread. To make that true the numbers would need to match, or at least be similar. They are not. COVID-19 killed many people who would have lived on for much longer than June.Vanadium 50 said:The statement wasanorlunda said:the assertion that the Coronavirus caused deaths in April that would have occurred in June is not correct.
Apparently, it is proven now according to the New York Times;kyphysics said:So, is the policy that we cannot post on today's reports on dexamethasone?
It's not a proven drug either. Although, every news outlet is reporting on it?
Not beneficial to those not using oxygen or ventilation.bob012345 said:The steroid, dexamethasone, reduced deaths by a third in patients receiving ventilation, and by a fifth in patients receiving only oxygen treatment, the scientists said. They found no benefit from the drug in patients who did not need respiratory support.
These are also less likely to die.kadiot said:Not beneficial to those not using oxygen or ventilation.
What was written was not explicitly either interpretation, but one interpretation is obviously silly. You picked that one to argue against.Vanadium 50 said:I can only go by what is written. That's what was written. You seem to have the ability to read minds, although I don't think you are doing a very good job of it with me.
The article says there were 112 residents, of which an estimated 80 were infected. This is consistent with the fraction infected if everyone is exposed, that we've seen elsewhere (70%).anorlunda said:This is a very emotional story about deaths in a nursing home. Despite forewarning, and despite believing that they were fully prepared, the virus got into this nursing home and killed 21 residents in a short time...
But the article says that the average stay for residents of that home is 3 years, and one of the victims was there for 15 years. Therefore, the assertion that the Coronavirus caused deaths in April that would have occurred in June is not correct.
It's certainly likely to have contributed, but in order to decline a ventilator you first have to be sick enough to need one. In addition, the ventilator survival rate has been reported to be quite poor (and again, probably gets worse with underlying health issues). A nursing home is a place where by definition everyone is in poor health, with the potential exception of people who voluntarily go to be with a spouse (though that would be financially burdensome and awkward).Therefore, victims could not be saved by use of ventilators. That fact, rather than the preexisting state of health of the residents could account for the very high mortality rate.
More testing would certainly lead to an increase in 'confirmed' cases of COVID-19, especially where testing has been limited. On the other hand, those of are positive cases. Perhaps more relevant is the number of hospitalizations.bob012345 said:Also factor in increased and expanded testing rates at least in Texas.
kyphysics said:So, is the policy that we cannot post on today's reports on dexamethasone?
It's not a proven drug either. Although, every news outlet is reporting on it?
bob012345 said:Apparently, it is proven now according to the New York Times;
An inexpensive drug reduces virus deaths, scientists say.
Scientists at the University of Oxford said on Tuesday that they have identified what they called the first drug proven to reduce coronavirus-related deaths, after a 6,000-patient trial of the drug in Britain showed that a low-cost steroid could reduce deaths significantly for hospitalized patients.
The steroid, dexamethasone, reduced deaths by a third in patients receiving ventilation, and by a fifth in patients receiving only oxygen treatment, the scientists said. They found no benefit from the drug in patients who did not need respiratory support.
Matt Hancock, Britain’s health secretary, said National Health Service doctors would begin treating patients with the drug on Tuesday afternoon.
The government started stockpiling dexamethasone several months ago because it was hopeful about the potential of the drug, Mr. Hancock said, and now has 200,000 doses on hand.
russ_watters said:In addition, the ventilator survival rate has been reported to be quite poor (and again, probably gets worse with underlying health issues).
Do you have a source for that?Jarvis323 said:Also, recently Fauci finally admitted to lying about the effectiveness of masks and explained why they launched their misinformation campaign. In my opinion, this should be a career ending scandal for everyone involved.
https://www.thestreet.com/video/dr-fauci-masks-changing-directive-coronavirus?jwsource=clruss_watters said:Do you have a source for that?
That doesn't back your claims.Jarvis323 said:
mfb said:That doesn't back your claims.
Globally, recorded recoveries are now nearly half of all confirmed cases, but the daily new cases are still going up. 120,000 now. We'll reach 10 million confirmed cases in early July at that rate.
Jarvis323 said:I apologize if I come off as brash. I understand that the campaign to discourage mask use could be framed in a more polite way, but I honestly think my framing of the incident as a misinformation campaign is quite accurate from a technical standpoint. I also realize that they had a "noble" motivation to lie to us, which is what Fauci explains in the video. I suppose it is up for debate whether scientists and government officials should lie to the public when they think the ends justify the means. In my opinion, it causes irreparable damage to the scientific community, our government institutions, and society in general. Many people won't trust the government, or scientific authorities in the future about other topics. And why should they if disinformation has become a normalized practice/strategy?
In terms of whether mask use could have prevented thousands of deaths and the need for a lock down, you can't prove anything about that. But I challenge you to compare countries which instituted mandatory mask use early on to those that didn't.
If we are being honest, the misinformation campaign, late adoption of the use of masks as a strategy (along with unpreparedness/empty stockpiles), is turning out to look very much like a disastrous set of mistakes.
I'm sorry I am being so pessimistic, instead of following suit to brush this all under the rug. It has been very frustrating being lied to (or at the very least being assertively told things were true, that were at best uncertain at the time, but turned out to be false) constantly throughout this whole thing. My intelligence has been constantly insulted. But it's not just me, it's the public they are talking to. So I guess they think the public is dumb, and us intellectuals need to just cover our eyes or something. Now it seems that most people are just confused, hanging on to all kinds of false assumptions, spreading misinformation on social media, and in general being very distrustful of everything else they are being told. So now we are asked to swallow the fact that we were lied to, because it was for our own good. Ok, thanks for lying to us, I guess.
This is a polite way of saying they lied. It sounds nicer, but it's less clear. But also, it wasn't just a random lie, it was a coordinated disinformation campaign. We can talk about it in all sorts of indirect ways without admitting it, but it's pretty obvious anyway by now, so what's the point?atyy said:but that their rationale was poorly explained, eroding trust.
atyy said:I agree that much public messaging on masks was misleading (you can see earlier in this thread there was vigorous discussion, eg. between @bhobba and @chemisttree). However, it doesn't mean that the public health recommendations were wrong, but that their rationale was poorly explained, eroding trust.
There is no shame in having trusted public health officials.bhobba said:Yes knowledge of this virus has moved on since those early posts. It is now known it can take a while for symptoms to show and you are infectious then:
https://theconversation.com/masks-h...q3bFQiLa7Pj1S3Be8145QyTC2buRb9ak6hvCoTWaUX_co
But remember in places like Australia infections are so low, those that have it are vastly coming from overseas and quarantined. We had 18 new cases today - but it was reported virtually all was from people quarantined from overseas. Local transmission is very very low - in Queensland just one today and we are getting more and more days with 0 cases. Only 5 active cases. In such a situation the optional wearing of masks, which is the rule here, is reasonable. Should a second wave strike, or we have local outbreaks then yes - masks should, and with what we now know would, be mandatory.
Thanks
Bill
Jarvis323 said:The disinformation went above and beyond, to the point that people were convinced mask use was actually dangerous and worse than nothing.
That's a fair point.bhobba said:If not needed it can make the situation worse because, as articles at the time explained, many people find them 'itchy' and scratch their face, which is a known method of transmission. It is a balance between benefit and risk. I am one of those people that even without a mask scratches their face, it's almost involuntary. With a mask it would likely be worse. If mask wearing was made compulsory, I would personally go out even less frequently (which now is on the average about once every two days and then only for short periods of time) than I do now, with a hand sanitizer in my pocket to be used frequently to avoid issues with scratching my face.
Thanks
Bill
Wearing a mask in public in NY state is compulsory in most areas, but many folks ignore it. In Washington state, it seems to be voluntary, but too many folks ignore.bhobba said:If mask wearing was made compulsory, I would personally go out even less frequently (which now is on the average about once every two days and then only for short periods of time) than I do now, with a hand sanitizer in my pocket to be used frequently to avoid issues with scratching my face.
I think officials also didn't realize the extent the virus had already spread among the population. So if they were working with the assumptions that almost everyone was free of the virus and that asymptomatic transmission was unlikely, the risk of catching it from some random person was low. Fauci implied this belief when he said, "The masks are important for someone who’s infected to prevent them from infecting someone else… Right now in the United States, people should not be walking around with masks." When it became clear that asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic transmission was a factor, it changed the equation. There were likely a lot more people walking around infected and spreading the virus. It made sense to revise the guidance about masks.gmax137 said:It was obvious to me when Fauci was discouraging mask use it was to preserve the supply for the medical workers. So, I don't feel like I was "lied to" at all.
And when he said general public use of mask was a waste, I saw that as truth - after seeing people out in public with masks on, reaching up to scratch their noses under the mask. Or wearing the mask upside down. Or having their nose sticking out above the mask.
Jarvis323 said:To make things worse, the denial of asymptomatic spread was actually pretty dubious at the time. It was't proven, but we had evidence of asymptomatic spread very early on. The late official acknowledgment of that wasn't the reason the truth changed about the danger, effectiveness, and advanced training required for masks to do more good than harm.
Why they were so dismissive of asymptomatic spread for so long is another issue. I suspect they were trying to avoid scaring people and at that time were likely worried about the impact on the economy. It was unproven at the time, but rather than saying that some evidence suggests asymptomatic spreading, but we're not sure, they chose to reassure us that asymptomatic spreading wasn't a concern. At the time they were convincing us that masks are dangerous, even if they weren't ready to warn us about asymptomatic spreading, they should have at least been concerned about it privately.
Jarvis323 said:At that time it was all about hand washing. And they had also dismissed evidence of spreading through aerosols.
kolleamm said:From what I understand a vaccine is supposed to stimulate your immune system to create antibodies to fight off the real virus.
But this concerns me. What if the immunity produced by the human body is not enough to completely eliminate all the Covid-19 symptoms for a significant amount of time?
If a vaccine is developed and approved and this is the result, then what?
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) said Sunday that three New York children have died and 73 have become gravely ill with an inflammatory disease tied to COVID-19. The illness, pediatric multisystem inflammatory syndrome, has symptoms similar to toxic shock or Kawasaki disease. Two of the children who died were of elementary school age, the third was an adolescent, and they were from three separate counties and had no known underlying health issues, said New York health commissioner Dr. Howard Zucker. Cases have been reported in several other states.
It isn't just children struggling with arterial inflammation. In fact, for a virus originally believed to primarily destroy the lungs, COVID-19 also "attacks the heart, weakening its muscles and disrupting its critical rhythm," the Post reports. "It savages kidneys so badly some hospitals have run short of dialysis equipment. It crawls along the nervous system, destroying taste and smell and occasionally reaching the brain. It creates blood clots that can kill with sudden efficiency."
Outsiders bring communicable diseases to remote areas.. . . thousands of skiers, outdoors enthusiasts and wealthy part-time residents with homes in New York, Seattle and Los Angeles flood the valley. From December to March, roughly 30,000 people from around the world usually land at the Friedman Memorial Airport in Hailey and visit restaurants, ski slopes and resorts.
atyy said:The possibility of asymptomatic spread was discussed early on and uncertainties were acknowledged in the WHO report on China. The early thoughts were not that there was no asymptomatic spread, rather that it played a small role in overall transmission, and thus measures like symptomatic people self-isolating before testing, quarantine of positive symptomatic cases, and hand washing and social distancing in the community would be able to manage the spread of the disease. It is still not clear whether this is incorrect (recent comments by Fauci indicates he thinks this is now wrong, whereas the WHO's recent comments indicate the evidence available to them is still consistent with this earlier view - it is important to note that the uncertainties were expressed in the original WHO comments, and it has not "backtracked").
Wouldn't all vaccines provide the same amount of protection? Aren't the clinical trials just to determine they are safe to use?Ygggdrasil said:This is what a Phase III clinical trial is supposed to determine. A large group of at risk people will be randomized to either receive the vaccine or a placebo. Scientists will then track the groups to see how many in each group contract the disease, show symptoms, and the outcome of those symptoms. A properly run clinical trial would likely be able to identify a vaccine that does not provide effective protection from the virus.
kolleamm said:If a vaccine is developed and approved and this is the result, then what?