| Brainstorm | Updates for France: +10971 cases, +23 deaths since 23 hours ago — United Kingdom: +389 cases, +1 deaths since 3 hours ago | 00:01 |
|---|---|---|
| Brainstorm | New from The Lancet (Online): [Articles] Duration of effectiveness of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 disease: results of a systematic review and meta-regression: COVID-19 vaccine efficacy or effectiveness against severe disease remained high, although it did decrease [... want %more?] → https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)00152-0/fulltext | 00:32 |
| darsie | COVID-19 disease = coronavirus disease - 19 disease | 00:38 |
| LjL | ... ookay | 00:42 |
| Brainstorm | New from Ars Technica: Science: Ivermectin fails another COVID trial as study links use to GOP politics → https://arstechnica.com/?p=1835789 | 00:52 |
| Brainstorm | Updates for Hong Kong: +7533 cases, +12 deaths since 22 hours ago — Vanuatu: +4 cases since 2 days ago | 01:04 |
| Brainstorm | Updates for China: +37895 cases, +12 deaths since 21 hours ago — Canada: +2084 cases, +5 deaths, +87561 tests (1.2% positive) since 23 hours ago — France: +10965 cases since 23 hours ago | 02:06 |
| Brainstorm | New from r/COVID19: COVID19: Phase 3 Clinical Trial Confirms SaNOtize’s Breakthrough Treatment is 99% Effective Against COVID-19; Receives Regulatory Approval in India → https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/sya1hm/phase_3_clinical_trial_confirms_sanotizes/ | 02:08 |
| LjL | O.o | 02:10 |
| LjL | 99%? | 02:10 |
| LjL | thank you reddit "A misleading headline (since 99% viral load clearance shouldn’t be declared as “99% effective”). Nevertheless still encouraging to see this trial was a success." | 02:11 |
| LjL | "The SaNOtize treatment is designed to kill the virus in the upper airways, preventing it from incubating and spreading to the lungs." | 02:12 |
| LjL | so presumably it should be used prophylactically, or at least very very early | 02:12 |
| LjL | (we aren't even managing to use Paxlovid early enough) | 02:12 |
| LjL | "SaNOtize’s strategic partner, Glenmark, will launch NONS commercially in India under the brand name FabiSpray®. The approval is for the treatment of adult patients with COVID-19 who have a risk of progression of the disease" so yes | 02:12 |
| LjL | "NONS has a marketing authorization as a Class I Medical Device in the EU. NONS is also approved and being sold in Israel, Thailand, Indonesia and Bahrain, under the name enovid™ or VirX™." | 02:13 |
| LjL | does it? why is it the first time i hear about it? | 02:13 |
| LjL | the press release (or whatever this is) has some very vague information on actual cure | 02:14 |
| LjL | "Treatment also demonstrated, in the high-risk group (n=218), a statistically significant greater proportion of patients who achieved a combination of clinical and virological cure, based on the World Health Organization (WHO) Progression Scale. Moreover, the median time to negative PCR, in this group, was 4 days in the treatment group compared with 8 days in the control." | 02:14 |
| blueberrycrop | What do you think of conspiracy theory? | 02:15 |
| LjL | grep "NONS\|SaNOtize\|VirX\|FabiSpray\|enovid" Libera/*covid*/202* → absolutely nothing except the above | 02:15 |
| LjL | blueberrycrop, that is an overly generic question | 02:16 |
| blueberrycrop | what makes you say that? | 02:16 |
| LjL | the fact it is | 02:17 |
| LjL | there are many conspiracy theories. are you asking what we think of a specific one? or of conspiracy theorizing in general? | 02:17 |
| blueberrycrop | What do you mean by that? | 02:17 |
| blueberrycrop | Well, one surrounding COVID mainly I guess. | 02:17 |
| LjL | conspiracies exist, but most conspiracy theories around are crap, and presented in crap ways. | 02:18 |
| blueberrycrop | Do you think COVID could be used to take freedoms away from the people? | 02:18 |
| LjL | yes, but to preempt and/or clarify, i don't think COVID *exists* for that reason. it exists because a bat infected a human. | 02:19 |
| blueberrycrop | If governments did try to use this to their advantage, do you think people would stand up and protest for their freedoms? | 02:19 |
| LjL | they already are | 02:20 |
| LjL | sometimes way too loudly | 02:20 |
| blueberrycrop | In the end we are all just human beans | 02:21 |
| blueberrycrop | and together we will rice | 02:21 |
| blueberrycrop | lettuce pray | 02:21 |
| blueberrycrop | ramen | 02:21 |
| LjL | i'm not one to shun wordplay, but that's kind of old | 02:24 |
| blueberrycrop | Hahaha XD | 02:25 |
| blueberrycrop | oh you heard that one before | 02:25 |
| LjL | %title https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01753-y | 02:42 |
| Brainstorm | LjL: From www.nature.com: Effectiveness of mRNA-1273 against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron and Delta variants | Nature Medicine | 02:42 |
| LjL | even higher efficacy against hospitalization, but lower against just disease, than other findings... | 02:43 |
| LjL | but kind of short term | 02:43 |
| LjL | also the abstract is very specific about low figures on disease being at 14 and 60 days, but just ">99%" against hospitalization. what concerns me is how much *that* goes down *in time* | 02:43 |
| blueberrycrop | LjL how do people recover from COVID if they have it?... Is there anything they could do?... I know it probably effects everyone differently. | 02:44 |
| LjL | there aren't really any widely-accepted home treatments. if you get to hospital or you are at risk, there are monoclonal antibodies, there is now Paxlovid and Molnupiravir (both underutilized, apparently, due to needing a quick-enough PCR to fall within the 5-day window, sigh), and there is supportive oxygen | 02:46 |
| Tuvix | Part of the problem is that treatments if you have a serious case of COVID typically require clinical verification (not all monoclonal antibody treatments work against all varients) and other interventions require medical professionals to diagnose or administer. | 02:49 |
| LjL | Tuvix, there is very little excuse for the Paxlovid underuse though, imo | 02:50 |
| LjL | lack of supply was a good excuse | 02:50 |
| Tuvix | A mild case (not requiring hospital or ICU support) isn't so much treated as much as it is let run its course, hopefully with the infected if they're aware isolating from others while they're likely to be spreading it. | 02:50 |
| LjL | but when i read it's not being used because people aren't diagnosed in time... i mean, i was expecting it, it was the first thing i said when i saw "within 5 days", but still big MEH | 02:50 |
| Tuvix | However, even mild cases can result in "long-COVID" symptoms in a portion of the population after acute symptoms are over, and those are less understood or treated. Vaccination seems to reduce the impact of long-COVID symptoms, and sometimes seems to also help if a recovered case gets a first or booster vaccination dose. | 02:51 |
| Tuvix | LjL: Yup, that was the big issue I saw as soon as the treatment procedure was identified for these oral treatments. It's already hard enough to get people tested in time so they can (if they "choose" to by US, and soon to be UK standards as I undersand them) nevermind getting tested and clinically verified to get a perscription for treatment if they are at-risk. | 02:52 |
| Tuvix | "… so they can isolate" that should have read. | 02:53 |
| LjL | Tuvix, and yet it's a ridiculous "bureaucratic" obstacle. you're at risk? the symptoms are suggestive of COVID? maybe you even have a positive self-test? hell get that Paxlovid *before* the PCR | 02:53 |
| blueberrycrop | That is rough. | 02:53 |
| LjL | (i keep saying Paxlovid because i'm much less happy about Molnupiravir being used widely, personally) | 02:53 |
| blueberrycrop | So there's nothing anybody could do? | 02:53 |
| Tuvix | Sure, this could still be sped up, provided you're giving a clinician the final say as to if a perscription is appropriate based on the patient, drug supply, and how accurate the results from a pre-PCR test are. | 02:54 |
| Tuvix | What do you mean by 'nothing' ? We have a fair number of options starting with preventation (vaccination and other mitigations, like masks in risky situations) plus better treatments now than we had 2 years, 1 year, or even 6 months ago. | 02:55 |
| LjL | blueberrycrop, i don't know, there are some conflicting reports on aspirin for example. it may be helpful or it may not be, it's possible that a particular GP doctor will prescribe some treatment that showed some early, vague, but promising results in trials, like aspirin. it's also common to take paracetamol to just feel better, but that doesn't improve the course of the disease. | 02:55 |
| LjL | Tuvix, i think they mean something an individual can do once infected and before being as bad as needing hospital | 02:56 |
| LjL | and the answer is really... no, or, ask your doctor, who will probably say no. AFAIK | 02:56 |
| Tuvix | Oh, yea, really not much can be done as an individual; if they either aren't vacinated (or aren't boosted if they're at that time-frame) then it's largely "too late" to do more to fight it, besides isolate from others to keep from infecting them, and monitor yourself to ensure you get medical help if it becomes serious. | 02:57 |
| LjL | i admit i would be tempted to take aspirin, or at least to ask my doctor what they think about it | 02:57 |
| LjL | oh yes, the monitoring: buy pulse oximeters, if nothing else because at this point being below 92% or so is a stated requirement for your GP to start further procedures | 02:58 |
| LjL | a simple pulse oximeter is €10 to €30, they're all similarly accurate (i.e. not very) | 02:58 |
| blueberrycrop | Dang | 02:58 |
| LjL | if you don't have a thermometer, also... well i don't understand people who don't have a thermometer, and they probably don't understand me, but there are also guidelines relating to fever, so | 02:58 |
| de-facto | as long as the pathogen circulates we will have severe problems with it. medicine is not ready to deal with this, not even after 2 years it seems | 02:59 |
| Tuvix | Yea, that's a good item to have these-days, much like having an oral thermometer is typical in homes to evalaute one's health. | 02:59 |
| blueberrycrop | People do recover though, right? | 03:00 |
| de-facto | unless they die | 03:00 |
| Tuvix | The real trick is to seek medical help when appropriate; I've noted here before a news story (TV or podcast, I forget where I heard it) where someone waited until her O2 stats from her at-home measuring device were below 60% (that's VERY bad.) It's crucial if you have at-home medical tools to have a basic idea how to use them and when to call a doctor or emergency-services. | 03:01 |
| de-facto | yet many of them have long COVID then | 03:01 |
| de-facto | we dont know for how long | 03:01 |
| LjL | blueberrycrop, the vast majority of vaccinated people recover. the possibility of a severe outcome is still much higher than i'd like, though | 03:02 |
| LjL | and indeed severe outcomes aren't only death | 03:02 |
| de-facto | yes vaccination helps a lot, but still this virus is bad enough, it causes a LOT of severe harm, even today one year after the vaccinations started | 03:02 |
| de-facto | yet countries think they can open now, exposing everyone to the harmful pathogen | 03:03 |
| de-facto | a gigantic mistake | 03:03 |
| de-facto | maybe this becomes clearer in the next wave | 03:03 |
| Tuvix | They're banking on not having another immune-escape VoC as compared to prior VoCs, which have notably all had some level of escape from prior protections. | 03:04 |
| LjL | but let's also keep things in perspective to avoid panic: many people in the Omicron wave just felt like they had a bad cold or a flu, and it lasted a few days, and then it went away. i don't want to slight the people who had a much worse experience than that, absolutely, i feel for them and i recognize it happens too much; but it's likely that not panicking and just thinking "it's feeling like a cold, my sat is still 97% or so, i'll probably be fine" is generally | 03:04 |
| LjL | helpful | 03:04 |
| Tuvix | It's a good move if you want the economy to re-open, but a bad move if your goal is to clamp down on the spread. | 03:04 |
| de-facto | management has tried to follow its wishful thinking for almost 2 years now, where has this brought us? to the highest exposure levels EVER | 03:04 |
| Tuvix | Right, if "more" cases are mild, some restrictions may make sense, but the problem is in places that got hit with bad *impact* from Omicron. | 03:05 |
| blueberrycrop | I just want this nightmare to end... Sure wish things will get back to normal. | 03:05 |
| LjL | i know. i'm jus talking, as they seem to be asking about, from the perspective of someone who has just tested positive, and might panic | 03:05 |
| Tuvix | The UK also saw a pretty big spike in deaths (not as bad as the US, but both saw a _big_ rise in deaths.) However, in the UK, the hospitals did a lot better. So perhaps the UK re-opening makes more sense than in the US. | 03:05 |
| Tuvix | I think it's important to put the local risk into context, becuase your risk may be low, but *if* you're unlucky enough to have a severe outcome despite being in a low-risk group for that, your access to healthcare may be a factor in risk management. | 03:06 |
| de-facto | we all want this nightmare to end, yet opening up transmission paths does the opposite of that | 03:06 |
| Tuvix | However, if my risk was both low *and* I had high-hopes that if I got infected in a big wave along with thousands of others that I'd have good access to medical care, I might factor that into my math. | 03:06 |
| blueberrycrop | Any idea what it will take to end this nightmare? | 03:06 |
| de-facto | it allows for more infections, more people get their health harmed or die, more variants emerge, the pathogen becomes more fit etc | 03:06 |
| Tuvix | OWID stats show that the US where I live has done an exceptionally bad job with hospital outcomes, so sadly this has to be a part of my personal risk consideration. | 03:07 |
| Tuvix | (outcomes as in how much stress our hospitals & ICUs are under, to be clear.) | 03:07 |
| LjL | blueberrycrop, it depends on what you define as the nightmare. COVID will likely never *disappear* as a disease. it's all over the world, in variants, it's in many animals | 03:08 |
| Tuvix | blueberrycrop: Well, it depends a bit on what you're looking at. I'd worry less about cases and more about severe outcomes, which include death, severe-enough disease to require hospitalization or medical intervention, inability to work, and long-COVID symptoms. | 03:08 |
| Brainstorm | Updates for Germany: +47792 cases since 21 hours ago — United Kingdom: +495 cases since 7 hours ago | 03:09 |
| LjL | it won't be back to a "normal" where we simply don't have to care at all about COVID, any time soon, or at all | 03:09 |
| Tuvix | Remember, we have lots of common illnesses that really *are* no big deal for most of us, including the common cold and the seasonal influenza. However, COVID is far more problematic due to how it effects enough of the population to cause problems for those unlucky enough to have bad outcomes. | 03:09 |
| LjL | but it may reach some "normal" where the impact of it is similar to the flu (probably worse but hopefully not too much). i suspect we'll still have to be very attentive for new variants arising, though. | 03:09 |
| de-facto | unfortunately i think much of the damage will only become visible after some time, when "recovered" people see themselves in a position where they are severely limited by long lasting symptoms such as fatigue, breathlessness, brain-fog etc | 03:09 |
| de-facto | this is not visible in the numbers since they only seem to differentiate between registered infections and registered deaths, but do not count long-COVID cases | 03:10 |
| de-facto | also i dont think this will go down to the impact of the flu, its MUCH more contagious and also seems to do more harm | 03:11 |
| LjL | and i don't believe zero COVID is pursuable when it's probably in every house cat (i just have little imagination, bear with me, but it's in a lot more mammals too) | 03:13 |
| LjL | so maybe the next big step if we want "the nightmare to end" should be actually good treatments. i can't just wish them into existence, but i'm not sure i see any other route than never-ending misery, tbh | 03:14 |
| LjL | vaccines are useful but have a short-lasting effect. people still died in pretty large number in the latest wave, nevermind other effects. the economy, even without lockdowns, suffers from people staying home from work during big waves. | 03:15 |
| LjL | what is left? a cure | 03:15 |
| de-facto | in my opinion there is no good alternative to cutting down transmission paths and thereby lower Rt < 1 | 03:15 |
| LjL | in my opinion that's practically impossible | 03:15 |
| LjL | that also happens to be the opinion of most world leaders, apparently | 03:15 |
| Tuvix | de-facto: Perhaps now down to that level, but I was discussing a day or two back where _some_ level I'll feel more comfortable calling things closer to normal. My country has a "post-vaccine" death average of 2.70 (per 7d/100k) for example (Jun 2021 - last week.) Flu average is 0.21. I'd accept a few (3? 4?) times annual deaths as "cost of living with COVID." But 20x where the US was last week? That's, | 03:15 |
| Tuvix | frankly, unacceptable. | 03:15 |
| LjL | as you say, maybe a deadly wave next winter will change our collective minds | 03:15 |
| Tuvix | (and yes, detahs don't count long-COVID or other impacts, but deaths are an easily accessible and fairly quick-showing metric to use) | 03:16 |
| de-facto | i mean, sure lets continue to try other things, why not, i just expect nothing else than cutting transmission paths will really work | 03:16 |
| Tuvix | Since vaccines were available for anyone who wanted them in the US, we've seen an _average_ (factoring in peaks and lows of death) of 12.6 *times* the rate of death annually as compared to influenza. | 03:17 |
| Tuvix | That's basically a whole year of flu deaths every month, on aveage, due to COVID. | 03:17 |
| Tuvix | We accept flu deaths in winter, and most countries have flu vaccines available for the at-risk (elderly or immune-compromised) and the flu tends to have little to no long-term impact for the mild cases, just a week of bed. COVID not only kills an order of magnitude more, but has some ugly side-effects for a portion of the recovered. | 03:18 |
| Tuvix | Somewhere between what the US (and many other countires) are seeing with COVID and what influenza looks like is my definition of "normal" or "living with COVID." We're not there yet. | 03:19 |
| de-facto | countries will go for their wishful thinking that they may be able to treat COVID as a simple flu. I cant believe this, but it really seems to be happening, so lets see where this leads, i think its a very big mistake | 03:20 |
| Tuvix | NYT had a good opinion piece about that focused on the US, pointing out that if we "give up" now, what we're doing is normalizing a high rate of death as acceptable. | 03:21 |
| de-facto | people think this endemic state is the "end of the pandemic" without realizing it just means it will continue like this indefinitely, a seasonal SARS is not going to be any better as its right now | 03:21 |
| de-facto | imho unacceptable in the long term | 03:21 |
| Tuvix | Well, it's not really all that seasonal considering Delta hit many places during their summer. | 03:21 |
| de-facto | yes because SARS-CoV-2 became so crazy infective, even the summer can not prevent exponential explosions of infections | 03:22 |
| Tuvix | A July/August infection as much of the global north saw is hardly seasonal. Granted Delta hit the US harder than some other places with better equipped population immunity, but Delta still had an impact in well-vaccinated and mitigation-friendly populations. | 03:22 |
| de-facto | yet in the winter transmission paths are even more open, hence always will result in big waves now | 03:22 |
| Tuvix | The US really failed because despite vaccines and time to prepare, our hospital & medical system cannot deal with these level of surges, and we've all but given up stronger measures to get more vaccinated and mitigate better. | 03:23 |
| Tuvix | Omicron was bad many places, but with very few exceptions, the US once again saw more impact, and that makes me really sad to see countries of similar economic and modern "first-world" status doing so much better than my own. | 03:24 |
| de-facto | and with opening up we even accelerate the viral evolution, it basically means giving SARS-CoV-2 "bruteforce power" in terms of numbers of viral replications to increase its fitness under given most prevalent circumstances | 03:24 |
| Tuvix | Right. If we're lucky, the Darwin-provided evolution will simply become more dominate on the next VoC but not more harmful, but that's not in our control. | 03:25 |
| de-facto | the next mutant is just about to emerge somewhere, and it surely will spread in weeks worldwide via airplane, as every mutant before it also did | 03:25 |
| de-facto | i mean we have seen this happening many times now, why would we ever assume it would change under the same circumstances | 03:25 |
| Tuvix | Yup. Best-case is that it's no worse than its ancestor, with similar or reduced impact. Worst-case is something that not only is more harmful but also evades our vaccines. | 03:25 |
| Tuvix | All it would take is for "Omega" (I'm inventing a new VoC for the worst-case from the end of the Greek alphabet) is so bad that is forces us to go back to strict lockdowns. | 03:26 |
| de-facto | i think the next mutant may even be worse, because Omicron was basically an evasive mutant (not so much a fitness variant like Delta), there very well may be open room for increasing its fitness | 03:27 |
| Tuvix | Perhaps, although Delta had less impact many places that had a good mix of vaccination uptake and some limited restrictions of some sort. | 03:27 |
| Tuvix | I again compare how bad the US handld things after a "good" (relatively speaking) summer here, but just as we let down our guard nationally, Delta slammed our hospitals and brought significant death. Somewhere like the UK by comparison saw much less impact, perhaps a doubling of ICU cases and similar death impact. | 03:29 |
| Tuvix | Then again, if you compare ICU between Germany & US for Delta (peaked at different times in both places) Germany also saw a fair rise in ICU stress and deaths. Not as bad as the US, but also not that far off. | 03:29 |
| Tuvix | US vs Germany, including the end of last winter's surge through today: https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explorer?time=2021-02-23..latest&Metric=Vaccine+doses%2C+cases%2C+ICU+patients%2C+and+deaths&country=USA~DEU | 03:30 |
| Tuvix | (set scale to log to better show case-comparison, but the vaccine/ICU/death is better viewed on linear scale) | 03:30 |
| Tuvix | Similar to the US, Germany never really "recovered" from Delta, although did a tad better in ICU and death reduction for a low-point. Both countries seemed to hit an artificial floor in improvement; some of this may be seasonal as we entered our winter months, but that also suggests a general trend to relaxing mitigations may not help us unless the virus *chooses* to give us better outcomes. | 03:32 |
| de-facto | i think people still did not understand that this is a new pathogen, trying to compare it to things like Influanza which is a *completely* different virus. We never had to deal with a worldwide SARS-CoV outbreak hence this is unlike anything we had so far | 03:32 |
| de-facto | at least in the time of modern medicine | 03:33 |
| de-facto | maybe there have been ancient outbreaks with other coronaviruses, and some seem to have been severe enough to leave their marks on human genome by natural selection | 03:33 |
| de-facto | i dont see any reason to assume it does not continue exactly as we experience it right now | 03:34 |
| de-facto | Especially after Omicron demonstrated it simply can reinfect people that had another variant before | 03:35 |
| Brainstorm | New from r/COVID19: COVID19: Four doses of the inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine redistribute humoral immune responses away from the Receptor Binding Domain → https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/syauym/four_doses_of_the_inactivated_sarscov2_vaccine/ | 03:35 |
| Tuvix | Yup. That's part of why I stress so hard about the comparison between flu & COVID. If you'll forgive the spam, I have a tiny comparison visually requiring about a dozen IRC lines. I think the scale really gives the figures more meaning; these are US-values naturally, given my data interest: | 03:36 |
| Tuvix | [ ☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠ ] | 03:36 |
| Tuvix | ^ Above: influenza average annual death (☠ = 1k fatalities) | 03:36 |
| Tuvix | v Below: COVID average annual death (same scale) | 03:36 |
| Tuvix | [ ☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠ ] | 03:36 |
| Tuvix | [ ☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠ ] | 03:36 |
| Tuvix | [ ☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠ ] | 03:36 |
| Tuvix | [ ☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠ ] | 03:36 |
| Tuvix | [ ☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠ ] | 03:36 |
| Tuvix | [ ☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠ ] | 03:36 |
| Tuvix | [ ☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠ ] | 03:36 |
| Tuvix | [ ☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠ ] | 03:37 |
| Tuvix | [ ☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠ ] | 03:37 |
| Tuvix | [ ☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠ ] | 03:37 |
| Tuvix | [ ☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠ ] | 03:37 |
| Tuvix | [ ☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠☠ ] | 03:37 |
| Tuvix | Apologies for the spam, but I think sometimes scale matters. | 03:37 |
| Tuvix | Anyone who says COVID is like the flu is offer by an order of magnitude. Nevermind long-COVID, by detahs alone this is *NOT* the same :( | 03:38 |
| Tuvix | is off by* | 03:38 |
| Tuvix | That doesn't even count the Excess Deaths that are the *true* pandemic impact. That is all *just* officially reported data, which is likely short another couple lines. I don't want to misrepresent the data though. | 03:42 |
| de-facto | i think the long COVID cases are the true pandemic impact | 03:47 |
| de-facto | and their magnitude is unclear, i would assume its much more than we assume though | 03:48 |
| Tuvix | That, and the still-unable-to-be-vaccinated <5 year olds. Although this said, they have lower per-case impact. | 03:48 |
| Tuvix | Well, long-COVID is tricky to put a number on because it ranges from very-little functional impact to very-severe impact to the point of being unable to work or even walk up a flight of stairs. | 03:48 |
| Tuvix | Do you count all of them? Just the severe cases? Who picks where that line is if so? | 03:49 |
| de-facto | i think many people that without the pandemic would have been perfectly healthy productive workers with almost no load on healthcare system may be converted to unhealthy, much less productive citizens that put a long-term load on the healthcare system | 03:50 |
| de-facto | this will severely harm the economy for decades to come | 03:50 |
| Tuvix | At this point as somoene in an age-group not especially at risk and free of known co-morbidities for severe acute-COVID outcomes, long-COVID is probably a bigger concern for me than the infection itself. | 03:50 |
| Tuvix | Sure, although that's true of something like smoking as well. Now, the difference there (as a really nicely worded article in The Atlantic recently put it) is that 2nd had smoke is easier to cut down on. COVID infection by someone transmitting it to *me* is less easy to protect against as a society. | 03:51 |
| de-facto | this will be hard to estimate, because many people will fight for their normal life, try to get back, and yet never really fully achieve this | 03:51 |
| Tuvix | I can wear my mask as often as practical, but I can't do that during indoor dining when eating, or at the bar while drinking. I have to choose if it's safe enough to risk 2nd hand COVID exposure from a positive case, or to avoid such venues. | 03:52 |
| de-facto | i just dont go to restaurants or bars anymore | 03:52 |
| Tuvix | Banning smoking indoors? That was unpopular, but we realized it's crucial to public health. Banning being COVID-contagious indoors? That's a lot harder. | 03:52 |
| de-facto | that time is over i think | 03:52 |
| de-facto | they slowly will vanish by going bankrupt | 03:53 |
| Tuvix | I carefully went to a couple palces I enjoyed during very-unpopular hours (during the workday, say for an early lunch) back in early summer, 2021, when the US really was on a pretty good downtrend. | 03:53 |
| Tuvix | I went cold-turkey on that starting around mid/late July when I saw the beginning of the Delta impact and realized what was about to happen. | 03:53 |
| Tuvix | I did a couple to-go orders, but it's really not the same since I actually don't mind cooking most of my own meals; the outings were fun more for the experience, not someone else cooking for me. | 03:54 |
| Tuvix | I do miss the sporting group too, but they're probably even worse in terms of COVID-exposure than an hour at a local bar would be. | 03:55 |
| de-facto | here i already can observer that effect, many places i went (restaurants, bars, clubs) to are simply vanished | 03:58 |
| de-facto | and it continues | 03:59 |
| Tuvix | To a point relaxinkg restrictions could signal that people who feel comfortable are allowd to go back, but I also see 2 dangers in that approach. | 03:59 |
| Tuvix | The first is obvious, in that it encourages spread, and thus may slow recovery or even pose a real problem if there's a new surge. | 03:59 |
| de-facto | opening may temporarily slow that down, until people realize they infect themselves e.g. in clubs and dont go there anymore, hence less and less guests will wear them down and make them vanish by bankruptcy | 04:00 |
| Tuvix | The second is a bit more subtle, but those that aren't comfortable going because of the risk (not simply the public gudaince or rules not to) may not return for sometime, at least not until/unless things improve. | 04:00 |
| Tuvix | I'm not so sure about your point of people realizing that these places are risky though; those who want to go back may not associate the new events they're going to with infection, since it takes several days to a week to both fall ill and progress enough to notice, depending on case; some may never notice with a mild progression. | 04:01 |
| Tuvix | The same people who are ready to go to such venues are also, I suspect, far less likely to test if it's not a requirement for work or elsewhere, and thanks to breakthrough infections being quite common with recent VoCs, vaccination alone won't tip the scales much either. | 04:02 |
| de-facto | its quite simple: some scenarios simply are incompatible with a highly infectious pathogen in circulation, so regardless of regulations, such high contagion scenarios will vanish, one by one, as long as the pathogen is in circulation | 04:02 |
| Tuvix | It's compatible insofar as we accept the fallout of fatalities and the various symptoms in exchange for these events. | 04:03 |
| Tuvix | I think we both agree that's not a good trade-off as things stand now, but not everyone agrees with that view. | 04:03 |
| de-facto | my assumption is that people are able to learn from personal experience, e.g. not touch a hot plate again when they burned their finger once, but maybe that is too optimistic? | 04:03 |
| Tuvix | That's almost immediate feedback though, and a toddler can learn that cause/effect relationship. | 04:04 |
| de-facto | maybe some people will be unable to connect the dots though | 04:04 |
| Tuvix | It's more messy when I may not even be the final destination of the virus; I could take more risks, then to see my grandparents, getting up there in age by now. My case may have been so mild I didn't notice, but it could land them in the hospital or the morgue. | 04:06 |
| Tuvix | If I had a week or 2 between a night at the bar and that visit, then it took her another 2 weeks to fall ill enough to need medical care, that's a long time to draw a connection to a behavior, especially if in this example I don't view it as all that risky. | 04:06 |
| de-facto | i think there is no good alternative to ending infection chains, the costs are high but still lower than any alternative for society | 04:08 |
| de-facto | cutting down transmission paths, regular testing, isolating, wearing masks | 04:08 |
| Tuvix | We could say the same thing about climate change though. | 04:08 |
| Tuvix | If we acted more agressively *now* we could have less impact *later* - but who wants to tell people goods will cost more and we have to give up creature-comforts today so that we can get some better vision of tomorrow, perhaps after most of our lifetimes. | 04:09 |
| Tuvix | You're not wrong in your approach, I just don't think most of society is ready to hear what you're saying. | 04:09 |
| de-facto | sure and honestly what this pandemic revealed about capitalist driven countries does not give me any hope that humanity will be able to deal with the climate crisis. everyone was educated by the capitalist system that the more reckless and selfish the attitude the better the personal outcome | 04:10 |
| Tuvix | Personally, I favor a bit of a middle-of-the-road approach with COVID; I'd really like to see more results-driven science applied to political and the resulting social rules. | 04:10 |
| Brainstorm | Updates for South Korea: +99550 cases, +58 deaths since a day ago — New Zealand: +2845 cases, +3 deaths, +24351 tests (11.7% positive) since a day ago | 04:11 |
| Tuvix | Yea, that's a good point too; the US is perhaps one of the most capitalistic countries in approach, and had one of the worst outcomes. The UK is similar in many ways, but NHS is very different from our insurance-focused healthcare, and perhaps equipped the NHS to suffer less in the later waves after we added vaccines to our mitigations in a way that the US capital-driven system couldn't handle. | 04:12 |
| Tuvix | After all, if you run a hospital or a medical insurance company, why would you *pay* more of your own profits to equip your facilities to have enough overhead to deal with a pandemic? Pre-COVID, you'd never seen such a need. | 04:12 |
| Tuvix | NHS is a government service and its job is to provide outcomes. Obviously they have a budget and that has its own limits, but it's also not a purely profit-driven approach. | 04:13 |
| de-facto | maybe this pandemic could teach us a thing or two about us as a human race trying to find a sustainable way of globalized society. | 04:14 |
| Tuvix | US healthcare also provides outcomes, but not as its goal; in the US, the goal is, generally, to make money. Medical outcomes is only required insofar as you can't remain a successful hospital if you can't save enough of your customers (ie: patients) | 04:14 |
| de-facto | i think it will stay as long as we found a more sustainable way, and imho that may even be a good thing | 04:14 |
| Tuvix | Perhaps, but what's the cost? How long do we as an ever-globalizing society need to reach that conclusion? | 04:15 |
| cadayton[m] | In the USA we are denied early treatment drugs this is the cause of the emergency room overloads, I suspect. I know this to be true because my son and his family got covid but had the early treatment drugs and they were over the symptoms in several days. No ER visit. WTF. | 04:15 |
| Tuvix | I think in the US the issue is a bit less access to some of the new oral-treatments for example, but in getting tested and cleared medically-speaking to get them. | 04:16 |
| de-facto | those treatments will help a bit (hopefully) but i am sure they will not be able to solve the problem | 04:16 |
| Tuvix | Supply *is* also a problem since for Plaxlovid in particular they can't produce enough supply to meet global demand, but it also does no good to have supply if you can't readily test and evaluate patients who may need them fast enough to perscribe them. | 04:16 |
| de-facto | Remdesivir was a complete failure for example, so much hope and it did not deliver at all | 04:17 |
| Tuvix | Do be careful reading into a specific case; just becuase some specific examples recovered after treatment doesn't mean it works. Someone is out there who got severely ill, never went to a hospital, and drank lots of whiskey and recovered. But it's misleading to conclude that whiskey helps survive COVID. | 04:17 |
| Tuvix | Well, let me put that another way; even *if* the treatment improves odds, it doesn't mean it was the cause or even a factor in a *particular* case. | 04:18 |
| Tuvix | All of this is an odds game; you get vccinated to improve your odds if (or let's face reality: when) you get exposed to the current or next VoC. It may not save you from bad outcomes, but it gives you a better chance of doing so. | 04:19 |
| cadayton[m] | Also big problem for me is the lack of trusted sources. US Gov and Big Pharma have a very bad track record for honesty and transparency. When doctors are forced to follow CDC guidelines or get fired, we lost our medical freedom. | 04:20 |
| Tuvix | We really have the reverse problem at scale more today; a dozen US states have passed or are poised to vote on bills that make knowingly perscribing treatments that are known to do nothing for COVID outcomes a common-practice. | 04:21 |
| Tuvix | Many of these states have medical boards that are very concerned about this, but this is also a political decision without regard for the medical issues involved. It concerns me greatly when politics is what drives medical regulation. Shouldn't it be the other way around? | 04:22 |
| de-facto | politicians dont want to give up their freedom of choice to choose whatever expert tells what they decided is currently the most useful for supporting them | 04:23 |
| Tuvix | The rest of us frequently give up our power. I have to give up my "freedom" to decide what speed to drive my car if I'm driving on a public road. | 04:23 |
| cadayton[m] | With you on your last. Let independent doctors collectively figure it out. Gov go print more money. | 04:24 |
| de-facto | basically they fear loss of control when they would have an independent consortium of experts that may publish recommendations on their own research, because then politicians would have to stand up against such publications in case they would not follow it | 04:24 |
| Tuvix | Review boards *are* made of independent doctors, cadayton[m]. | 04:24 |
| Tuvix | The review boards are based on medical science, and span many different hospitals and medical practices, and consist of respected experts in their various fields. You think that politicians who aren't typically consluting such experts are better poised? What makes these review boards today different from your ideal of such "independent doctors" as you put it? | 04:25 |
| cadayton[m] | Well there has been a very piss poor job of getting clear information published to the everyone. We just have DR Joe Biden pushing mandates without being backed up trust worthy sources. | 04:27 |
| Tuvix | You've just changed topic again. | 04:27 |
| Tuvix | I asked what your issue of medical review boards was with respect to ensuring doctors who are actually performing improper medical practice is concerned. | 04:28 |
| Tuvix | You then opted to bring up mandates, and he's actually typically avoided those; the courts are knocking down that approach, and many have argued that the Biden administration put too many eggs in the vaccination basket insofar as the reduced restrictions (or "mandates" if you want to call them that) we have are much more lax compared to our neighbors. | 04:29 |
| Tuvix | Canada, the UK, Germany, Italy, and many similar economic neighbors to the US have had a lot more restrictions this past year than we have; by comparsion, we're one of the most lax countries, but you still haven't addressed my question about review boards. | 04:29 |
| cadayton[m] | I can't comment on review boards. What I see are doctors who won't write prescriptions for early treatment drugs to keep people out of the emergency rooms. | 04:30 |
| Tuvix | Have you looked into the drivers of that problem? From what I've read, it's not that they are _unable_ to write those perscriptions, but that they can't get the patients identified in _time_ who would qualify. | 04:30 |
| Tuvix | You can't magically make drugs work outside of their stated application. | 04:31 |
| Tuvix | As an example, if I were to apply antibiotic cream to my lips for an injury on my foot, it wouldn't work. A doctor could even *perscribe* me to put it on my lips, and we could change governemnt rules to make it not a failure of medical industry to do that, but it won't change outcomes. | 04:31 |
| de-facto | only now there may be antivirals that at least may have *some* effect if given early enough, yet there very well may be an issue with broadly subscribing them as they put selection pressure on those virions that they target | 04:32 |
| Tuvix | I use this rather silly example for a very important purpose here, if you're willing to follow me up to now; what good does it to do perscribe a COVID oral-treatment if it won't help a patient? | 04:32 |
| cadayton[m] | In normal instances I would agree, but the early treatment drugs are over the counter in third world countries and have a proven track record. | 04:33 |
| de-facto | it very well may be that if subscribed broadly that these antivirals may become much less effective in preventing viral replication simply by allowing for more "bruteforcing" their viro-static properties, e.g. the more often a virus may try to circumvent their molecular mechanism the higher the chance becomes for an emerging evasive mutant coming into circulation | 04:34 |
| de-facto | basically that then may mean that those antivirals may become ineffective even for that minority of very vulnerable people that then also may get infected with a resistant mutant | 04:34 |
| cadayton[m] | If it doesn't work it would makes sense to me. So I would agree. But I've seen it work for my son's family. | 04:35 |
| cadayton[m] | s/would/wouldn't/ | 04:35 |
| LjL | cadayton[m], it is pretty clear you're referring to ivermectin. however your claimed "proven track record" is not actually reflected in trials and reviews of such trials. | 04:35 |
| LjL | cadayton[m], you haven't "seen it work" | 04:35 |
| Tuvix | If we're talking drugs not clinically studied in reviewed and accepted medical practices, it doesn't belong in this channel | 04:35 |
| LjL | cadayton[m], i know someone who got COVID in the Omicron wave here, she had a few days (like 4) of headache and malaise | 04:35 |
| LjL | then it was gone | 04:36 |
| LjL | fortunately, for many people it's just like that | 04:36 |
| de-facto | so it may make sense to restrict antiviral treatment to the vulnerable sub-group and then *stictly* isolate them during treatment period in case they develop an evasive mutant, because it really would have to be avoided that such a mutant comes in wide circulation | 04:36 |
| LjL | she didn't take *anything* | 04:36 |
| LjL | you can't claim to have "seen something work" because you've seen one or two patients get well on their own from COVID | 04:36 |
| Tuvix | ^ Yes, that, 100%, just like my whiskey example. | 04:36 |
| LjL | that's what trials are for, not random people with their single anecdote | 04:36 |
| Tuvix | By the way, I looked at my bookmarks for material on the states that are working to change standards-of-care either universally or specific to COVID, and most of them are not based in medical science at all. Here's a good introduction to that topic, since you had opinions but admitted you didn't really know much about it: | 04:38 |
| Tuvix | https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/state-legislators-dispense-with-standard-of-care-for-covid-treatment-and-encourage-medical-misinformation/ | 04:39 |
| cadayton[m] | This is were mixed information is the biggest problem in play. I can only be witness to what I see. | 04:39 |
| Tuvix | I broke my arm as I child; I couldn't see that it was broken, but it was. | 04:39 |
| de-facto | resistance to (highly specific) small molecule drugs may develop very fast, if the molecular mechanism is not so specific (the target more fundamental) it may possibly take longer for a resistance to evolve, but this also would mean the drug most likely would have more side effects (affecting not only the virus) | 04:40 |
| Tuvix | Your logic really falls apart here, becuase the effectiveness of drugs requires a standard applied to the medical industry as it is in many other industries using the scientific method. | 04:40 |
| LjL | cadayton[m], that's a completely misguided view of how information works. you actually *aren't* witness to a COVID "cure", because you CAN'T KNOW THAT based on just a person or two. it's absolutely irrational to trust the fact that you've seen a person or two get well after taking ivermectin, and disregard the trials and reviews on it because you "can't be witness to them" | 04:40 |
| LjL | this is not how science, including medical science, works | 04:40 |
| LjL | we must be wary of sources and definitely give everything a good hard look, but if we start by saying you can only really trust the fact that your son's family was "cured" and you can't trust anything else that you didn't personally witness, we won't be going anywhere. | 04:41 |
| LjL | why do you even (seemingly) trust there is "a proven track record" "in third world countries", which you haven't SEEN and information from those countries is often unreliable, but with clinical trials run properly "this is where mixed information is the biggest problem in play"? | 04:42 |
| LjL | you're not really being witness to what you see, you're deciding what to believe in, even though you haven't seen any of it, let's at least be honest | 04:42 |
| cadayton[m] | So we trust Big Pharma and the US Gov whom are known to lie and de-platform anyone with a different view? | 04:43 |
| LjL | that's not what i said, but you do clearly seem to have an agenda | 04:44 |
| LjL | what's your agenda, just so we know exactly? | 04:44 |
| cadayton[m] | Truth is my agenda | 04:44 |
| LjL | "whom" is not used like that, by the way | 04:44 |
| LjL | just say "who" if you aren't sure, that always works | 04:44 |
| cadayton[m] | https://aflds.org/ Think truth is presented here? | 04:45 |
| LjL | you won't find truth if you start by saying that somehow proper clinical trials are to be disregarded because they're about "Big Pharma and the US Gov" but you will absolutely trust that a drug that was given to a couple of people who happened to recover from COVID easily is evidence that it works | 04:46 |
| de-facto | well the problem with truth is that its an ideal, noone can know it for sure, there only are empiric ways that aim for approaching it with falsifiable results, its an iterative process though, the more data is accumulated the closer one may come, step by step | 04:46 |
| LjL | i have no idea, that's not a site i visit | 04:46 |
| LjL | cadayton[m], i can see, however, that is promotes hydrocholoquine, which is a treatment known *not* to work. i ask that you refrain from posting or promoting such sites. | 04:47 |
| de-facto | reversing that would mean: the less data is accumulated the more unreliable statistic results become, the obvious limit being individual anecdotal cases, that dont allow for any comparison when only taken by themselves and not seen in a more representative bigger group of cases that developed under comparable circumstances | 04:48 |
| cadayton[m] | hydrocholoquine, which is a treatment known not to work. So their references are not correct then are they misleading everyone? | 04:50 |
| Tuvix | One needs to evaluate references with an eye to critical thinking. Previously here I've looked at a couple of studies that did cite bad information, but it's required to go review _those_ citations and perform the same critical analysis on them in order to arrive at such a conclusion. | 04:51 |
| cadayton[m] | Its confusing. One expert (supposedly) says one thing and another has the opposite opinion. Where does this leave the average person? | 04:53 |
| Tuvix | What studies are you referring to, in particular? The answer depends on the value of the material. | 04:53 |
| Tuvix | Do you perhaps have DOI references for us? | 04:53 |
| xx | cadayton[m]: the average person should just avoid contact with others while there's a pandemic out there. Done. | 04:54 |
| Tuvix | For example, allow me to cite form one, reference is: doi: 10.3390/antibiotics10040365 . They say: "HCQ did not improve mortality in the treated group (7.7% vs. 7.2%). There were no significant differences in terms of duration of hospitalization, need for and time in ICU, and need for mechanical ventilation among the groups." | 04:54 |
| Tuvix | "[continued from above…] Our study provides further evidence that HCQ treatment does not reduce mortality rates, length of hospital stay, admission and time in ICU, and need for mechanical ventilation in patients hospitalized with COVID-19." | 04:54 |
| LjL | cadayton[m], science it's not about "experts". science it's about doing science. look at the trials, look at the reviews of trials, form your opinion based on them, and if you can't, then weigh your "experts" based on the perceived quality of the information they gave you, which you have hopefully been somewhat educated to evaluate by school etcetera. but going on sites of "associations" of "experts" who may or may not have an agenda is generally not a very good | 04:58 |
| LjL | idea. | 04:58 |
| cadayton[m] | Thanks for that info. If other DRs are saying HCQ and/or ivermectin might help on early treatment what are they basing that recommendation on? | 04:58 |
| LjL | tentative early evidence that was legitimate at the time and trials were being run. eventually the sum of those trials showed no benefit from either of those drugs. | 04:59 |
| xx | LjL: if science was about doing science, then something could be said about ethics, but, you know... | 04:59 |
| LjL | however it's very easy, like you have *witnessed yourself*, to be swayed by personal "experience" | 04:59 |
| LjL | experience as in, i've given HCQ or IVM to these patients, and they recovered, so i don't believe the studies, i'll just believe my instinct, and prescribe more of them | 05:00 |
| LjL | that's bias, and doctors are susceptible to it as anyone else. presumably xx can tell me which bias | 05:00 |
| xx | survivor bias | 05:00 |
| LjL | as long as she does it quickly before i send her to orbit | 05:00 |
| LjL | i don't think that's survivor bias | 05:01 |
| Brainstorm | Updates for France: +19055 cases since 18 hours ago | 05:01 |
| xx | hmm | 05:01 |
| cadayton[m] | Thanks for all your feedback. I'm open minded and trying to see through all the BS. | 05:02 |
| LjL | survivor bias is like... disregarding a whole subset of people because they didn't, err, survive, sometimes in a broad sense | 05:02 |
| xx | that's what I'd call "Those who survived get to talk about all the special things that were done that helped them survive, compared to those who did not survive because those can't say anything now" | 05:02 |
| LjL | hm | 05:02 |
| xx | but it's gonna be some sort of selection bias for sure | 05:02 |
| LjL | yeah | 05:02 |
| Tuvix | I'd pay more attention to the quality of the studies various groups supply to back their position. A good expert or publication is going to reference the studies. | 05:02 |
| cadayton[m] | Victor gets to write history. | 05:03 |
| Tuvix | If you don't see any references, be *very* careful in trusting that resource. BUT, yhou need to do more; in order to decide if the sources are to be trusted themselves, you have to download those sources, hopefully these are clinical studies and trials of some sort, and read them, very carefully. Decide if the study appears to meat with basic scientific practices. | 05:03 |
| LjL | xx, but i was going more for a combination of what happens when you "commit" to a strategy: i think HCQ work, i've given it to patients when studies were optimistic about it, i won't hear studies that said "nope, we were wrong about it", because i'm committed | 05:03 |
| Tuvix | Were the trials double-blind? Were the methods a good fit for the hypothesis? Did the review account for possible confounding effects such as age, medical condition, and population factors? | 05:04 |
| LjL | err, a combination of that, *and* the "i've seen this personally so it matters more than study" | 05:04 |
| xx | that'll be confirmation bias possibly combined with sunk-cost fallacy | 05:04 |
| LjL | (it probably helps if i say a combination of *what* when i say something is a combination) | 05:04 |
| LjL | right confirmation bias is closer | 05:04 |
| LjL | i've heard these terms a thousand times and i can never quite... i don't know | 05:04 |
| xx | yeah I see, you mean focus on the doctors speaking about it instead of the patients speaking about it | 05:05 |
| Tuvix | cadayton[m]: Here's an example for you. I want to be clear I have *not* yet reviewed the study referenced, but if you'll allow me to show you, I'll briefly point out what *may* imply the referenced study has value if it's represented honestly. https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-halts-clinical-trial-hydroxychloroquine | 05:05 |
| Tuvix | So, a couple important thigns. First, note how the study is described, "The blinded, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial aimed to enroll more than 500 adults who are currently hospitalized with COVID-19 or in an emergency department with anticipated hospitalization. More than 470 were enrolled at the time of study’s closure." | 05:05 |
| LjL | when trials are halted prematurely, it's usually either very good news or very bad news | 05:05 |
| xx | from a logical stance, we'd need to establish whether there's intent to deceive others (or oneself) or not - that would elimiate terms such as cherry-picking | 05:06 |
| Tuvix | So, right away we get a few boxes I noted above checked: the study is blinded and placebo-controlled; that's good, as we want to compare A vs B; you can't do that just giving someone a drug, but you need a *control* group. In this case, they think they're getting the drug, but are not. | 05:06 |
| xx | placebo control is a must when doing an interventional study | 05:06 |
| Tuvix | Second, they appear to have described a clinically-relevant trial, that is, adults who are hospitalized due to COVID in a hospital setting; that's important, becuase if you want to evaluate outcomes, you want a population that meets your criteria for the drug being evluatd. | 05:07 |
| LjL | xx, although i think most of the fallacies you could think of can *either* happen consciously with intent to deceive, or subconsciously. you could say they're two very different situations but i think there is pretty much a one-to-one relationship to "conscious" fallacies and "subconscious" biases | 05:07 |
| Tuvix | Third, the summary NIH gives briefly talks about the methods; they had a *standard* of care, and they also describe the dosing and timing of doses given. So, in summary, without even pulling up the cited article, it *seems* , if we trust the summary to be accurate, that this is a good trial that showed no value to the drug. However, to dig further, one would pull up that article and reivew it. | 05:08 |
| Tuvix | Don't just trust a summary, especially if someone else is giving it to you. In this case NIH is not likely to have botched a basic review of the article for a news release they put out, but the next step is to go look up the clinical trial and read about it for yourself. You can do that easily, just search the trial desription: "the trial in April at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, | 05:09 |
| Tuvix | Tennessee" | 05:09 |
| Tuvix | I'll stop my exposition of the critical thinking process here, but by all means go a step further and review the trial information. Even just the Abstract or Intruduction sections tend to have a lot of useful information to help evaluate a study's basic merits. | 05:11 |
| cadayton[m] | <Tuvix> "Second, they appear to have..." <- So NIH "A clinical trial to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of adults hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been stopped by the National Institutes of Health. " What about early treatment for non-hospitalized people guess that would be near impossible to get hard data on that type of trail? For NIH, they are financial | 05:25 |
| cadayton[m] | independent from Big Pharma? | 05:25 |
| xx | cadayton[m]: HCQ has some very nasty side effects though, even at the doses at which it is normally administered | 05:26 |
| xx | I haven't seen any case reports (because I haven't specifically looked) but I'd bet someone has already gone blind by being administered HCQ | 05:27 |
| Tuvix | cadayton[m]: I don't quite get what you're asking here. Are you trying to evaluate if there are possible industry biases in the trial? If that is your concern, wouldn't you suspect that a trial would be continued even *if* if saw no evidence of positive outcomes? In this case, the trial was terminated early becuase there were no clinical differences. | 05:28 |
| cadayton[m] | Exactly, this "biases in the trial?' | 05:29 |
| Tuvix | But then you'd suspeect the trial had gone on too long in order to promote a treatment that didn't work. After all, if "Big Pharma" was pulling the strings, they'd have more to gain by continuing despite lack of clinical outcomes, or perhaps doing a new trial with less clear clinical approaches (such as the placebo and blind evaluation I hit on earlier.) | 05:30 |
| cadayton[m] | More of a question in general about NIH rather than any specific trial. | 05:31 |
| Tuvix | The best approach there is to read more about the specific trial then and apply a similar approach above. Regardless of who who may have sponsored the trial, look into how it was conducted. | 05:33 |
| Tuvix | For example, obviously Pfizer and Moderna had incentive to get their vaccines to market, but the people reviewing those approvls, first for trials, then fo ran EUA, and then for full-FDA approval, those pharma-companies had to *prove* to medical boards their methods were sound. | 05:34 |
| cadayton[m] | roger | 05:34 |
| Tuvix | No one took their word for it, because we can't just do that. In fact, the approval in the US for the under-5-year-olds is *still* held up. Pfizer actually wanted to get approval to start a 2-dose process in young children hoping a 3rd dose would improve things, but it was rejected. | 05:35 |
| Tuvix | This is actually a *really* good example. It's very frustrating if you have young children you want vaccinated, but it shows that the regulators are not fooled by what we might call "wishful thinking." | 05:35 |
| Tuvix | A 3rd dose *might* work in kids, but shouldn't we know first? In my opinion, we want to get dosing right so we *know* it works. | 05:36 |
| Tuvix | We've approved the 5-to-12 year olds becuase those trials showed specific progress; that didn't happen in the 6mo to 4 year olds, so they failed to get their EUA. | 05:37 |
| Tuvix | As much as it really sucks not to be able to vaccinate young kids (I'm a new uncle with a 3-month old neice, eligible for 6mo vaccinations in just a couple more months) I'd love for her to get protected. But I don't want her mother to vaccinate with a product that isn't dosed correctly to offer protection. | 05:38 |
| Tuvix | niece* | 05:38 |
| Tuvix | In the event you hadn't yet found the trial landing page, that's here: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT04332991 | 05:43 |
| Tuvix | The "Tabular View" has links (near the bottom) to the publications resulting from the study, but the first "Study Details" page also goes into a bit more detail as to methods and study structure. | 05:44 |
| Tuvix | One quick example to help you get started; the publication reference in the study from the JAMA publishing network (first publication link) explains that, "Design, setting, and participants: This was a multicenter, blinded, placebo-controlled randomized trial conducted at 34 hospitals in the US." | 05:46 |
| Tuvix | Also note that publication's "Conflict of interest" statement: you'd asked about pharma involvement, and in the interest of transparency (a legal requirement here) some doctors did note receiving "personal fees" from various industry groups or companies. | 05:48 |
| Tuvix | Here again, consider who has an interest in what; it's not necessarily uncommon for industry to want to fund a study, especially if *they* can be the one to help sell or distribute a drug. The trial could fail (as this one did) and they call it a loss. But if it *had* worked? They could have gone to market and possibly turned a profit. | 05:49 |
| LjL | the thing is having completely independent trials is hard. they are expensive, and the people with interest in spending that money are generally people who might profit from the result of the trial. this is not a big conspiracy, it's just the realities of it | 05:50 |
| Brainstorm | New from r/Science: science: Phase 3 Clinical Trial Confirms SaNOtize’s Breakthrough Treatment is 99% Effective Against COVID-19; Receives Regulatory Approval in India → https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/syd7cy/phase_3_clinical_trial_confirms_sanotizes/ | 05:50 |
| Tuvix | We also see that various grants were offered, and helpfully some groups behind this from outcome-driven groups like the NHLBI (they're under the NIH, but focus on clinical outcomes in patients) | 05:50 |
| Tuvix | So, I'm actually *more* willing, personally, to trust this study. Yes, the doctors involved had some grants and personal fees covered by the pharma industry, but they *also* had grants from science-driven groups (like NIH, among others listed you can read about yourself.) This suggests to me that various stake-holders all got a "seat at the table" so to say. | 05:51 |
| Tuvix | It's a very good sign when a study has such interst to generate funding from both medical industry and outcome-driven groups. | 05:52 |
| Tuvix | Of course, this study failed to produce a result that indicated the drug worked, but that's how science happens. You start with a theory, create as accurate a teste-framework to evaluate it, perform science, and get your results reviewed. | 05:52 |
| Tuvix | Actually, I should clarify my last statement; there were results, and they showed clearly that the drug as a COVID-treatment does *not* work. That's different from being unable to show a statistically-meaningful outcome. | 05:56 |
| truthr | if i get vaxed, get abooster, does that mean i will test positive with a covid antibody test | 06:01 |
| oerheks | truthr, no | 06:02 |
| truthr | alright. i am getting some blood work tommorrow for something else, might as well askthem to do covid antibody test | 06:03 |
| truthr | i don't think i need a doctor to order it | 06:03 |
| truthr | it might be free | 06:03 |
| Tuvix | Erm, yes. The *antigen* tests are what test to see if you are currently contagious, but my understanding (looking for a good reference for you now) is that *antibody* tests can show positive after vaccination, which is what you want. | 06:03 |
| truthr | would love to know because i have not had covid yet | 06:03 |
| truthr | kind of dreading getting it | 06:03 |
| Tuvix | In other words, the vaccination is specifically designed to help your body produce antibodies that can respond to an actual COVID infection, without having you actually be exposed to the COVID virus. | 06:04 |
| Brainstorm | Updates for Germany: +137844 cases since 23 hours ago | 06:04 |
| truthr | Tuvix: see i am getting conflicting info | 06:04 |
| Tuvix | truthr: Are you sure it's an *antibody* test specifically, and not an *antigen* test? Some places may offer both. | 06:04 |
| truthr | Tuvix: i thought i read antibody | 06:04 |
| truthr | not sure | 06:04 |
| Tuvix | It's a big difference, despite similar looking words. | 06:05 |
| truthr | which is better | 06:05 |
| cadayton[m] | I'm not jabbed either nor have I had covid. But if I was to get jabbed, I find a doctor I trusted to be an independent thinker and follows his/her advice. | 06:05 |
| Tuvix | truthr: Depends on what you're testing for. What's your goal in the test? Are you trying to find out if you're positive now and may be contagious to spread it to others? | 06:06 |
| truthr | well i am double jabbed cadayton[m] | 06:06 |
| truthr | Tuvix: goal is to find out if i already had the virus and did not notice it | 06:07 |
| truthr | some people get pretty sick, i don't want that | 06:07 |
| Tuvix | https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/safety-communications/antibody-testing-not-currently-recommended-assess-immunity-after-covid-19-vaccination-fda-safety | 06:07 |
| truthr | i havent had a cold for a few years | 06:07 |
| oerheks | i only felt 2 days bad after the booster. | 06:07 |
| Tuvix | "The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is reminding the public and health care providers that results from currently authorized SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests should not be used to evaluate a person’s level of immunity or protection from COVID-19 at any time, and especially after the person received a COVID-19 vaccination." | 06:08 |
| Tuvix | truthr: ^ | 06:08 |
| truthr | Tuvix: thanks. then what is the point of the test | 06:08 |
| Tuvix | "A COVID-19 vaccination may also cause a positive antibody test result for some but not all antibody tests. You should not interpret the results of your SARS-CoV-2 antibody test as an indication of a specific level of immunity or protection from SARS-CoV-2 infection." | 06:08 |
| truthr | :\ | 06:09 |
| Tuvix | Well, the test *is* useful for studies that are evaluating the antibody level in the blood, but even these have to be viewed with caution. | 06:09 |
| Tuvix | For example, we know vaccine effectiveness against severe outcomes (hospitalization or death) wane over time, and that's *especially* true for Delta and Omicron. However, antibodies aren't really what we care about, they're just easy to measure. | 06:09 |
| Tuvix | What we *really* want, with vaccination and protection in general, is a robust *immune* response. Antibodies in your blood are part of this, but a much more important consideration is how well your body can produce *new* antibodies if you get exposed. | 06:10 |
| LjL | An N-protein antibody test will be able to distinguish vaccination-induced immunity from infection-induced immunity, because most vaccines only produce the S-protein as antigen | 06:10 |
| truthr | good to know | 06:10 |
| LjL | So if you are vaccinated and want to know whether you had COVID in the past, you need to look specifically for an N-protein (not S-protein) antibody test | 06:11 |
| Tuvix | Ah, ^ there we go, some specific info, helpful. I think the broad take-away though is you need to be clear with your healthcare professional about what test you're seeking and make sure it's going to help you make a sound medical decision. | 06:11 |
| LjL | Even then, if it turns our negative, you antibodies may simply have waned so you can't have the certainty you never got COVID | 06:11 |
| truthr | i c | 06:11 |
| LjL | If it's positive and it's a decent test, though, there are decent chances you've had COVID | 06:11 |
| Tuvix | But really, you don't care to much about your antibody levels; you want a good immune response. Think of antibodies in your blood like a country's border guards; they're a first-line of defense, but if there's an invasion (ie: COVID infection) you need to bring in reinforcements. | 06:12 |
| LjL | But why do you want to know anyway? If it's to know whether you can get infected (again), bad news, you can even if you were infected before | 06:12 |
| Tuvix | Yea, the antibody test that can exclude false-positives from vaccination may help identify if you've had it, but here's another word of caution; some mild COVID infections don't actually seem to produce good immune response later. | 06:12 |
| Tuvix | It's actually very hard to say with any certainty even if you were previously infected how good that protection is. Prior varients don't help so much against Omicron, and a mild case of Omicron may not do much to protect against re-infection by Omicron (or the BA.2 "sub-varient") | 06:13 |
| LjL | Tuvix: tbh I think the quick vaccine waning shows that we do need circulating antibodies to have a meaningfully suppressing response, imo | 06:13 |
| truthr | LjL: was just kind of hoping i already had it and thus will prob not get it again | 06:13 |
| Tuvix | LjL: Indeed, and that's why I don't think antibody testing is very useful for an individual level, and even studies using them have to treat the data carefully depending on what they're really studying. | 06:14 |
| LjL | truthr: yeah, sorry, you can get it again anyway, especially with Omicron. Latest estimate I've read is Omicron only give some 50% protection against getting Omicron again (and likely worse over time) | 06:14 |
| Tuvix | Unfortinuately, having COVID before doesn't do a lot to prevent re-infection. The varients have shown a good ability to re-inefect people who have had it before. | 06:14 |
| truthr | well thats just great | 06:17 |
| Tuvix | .title https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/21/covid-reinfection-how-likely-are-you-to-catch-virus-multiple-times | 06:18 |
| Brainstorm | Tuvix: From www.theguardian.com: Covid reinfection: how likely are you to catch virus multiple times? | Coronavirus | The Guardian | 06:18 |
| Tuvix | "Anecdotal reports of Covid reinfection in the UK are growing, including people testing positive just weeks apart in December and January, or having had the virus three or even four times." | 06:18 |
| Tuvix | "It also depends on the variant […] Experts say the dose to which someone is exposed may also be important." | 06:19 |
| Tuvix | ^ the problem is, we don't really know what our exposure-dose was if we are infected. | 06:19 |
| Tuvix | We _do_ know the vaccination dose, because it's given in a clinical setting. | 06:19 |
| Tuvix | "protection against catching Covid arising from a previous infection within the past six months has fallen from about 85% before Omicron turned up to somewhere between 0% and 27%." (study referenced in the article above I'm quoting from) | 06:20 |
| Brainstorm | Updates for Novosibirsk, Russia: +5001 cases, +10 deaths since 23 hours ago — Bashkortostan, Russia: +4387 cases, +17 deaths since 23 hours ago — Tumbes, Peru: +3676 cases, +33 deaths since 13 days ago — Tatarstan, Russia: +3159 cases, +6 deaths since 23 hours ago | 07:06 |
| Brainstorm | New from COVID on Twitter: Jeffrey Duchin, MD (@DocJeffD): “There is no time limit to wearing a respirator, says N95 manufacturer 3M. They are designed for multiple uses and can be worn until they are dirty, damaged or difficult to breathe through.” seattletimes.com/seattle-news/h… → https://twitter.com/DocJeffD/status/1495997357862785027 | 08:10 |
| oerheks | happy 22022022 palindrome day | 08:45 |
| xx | twos day | 08:45 |
| xx | two's day | 08:45 |
| oerheks | tuesday? yes | 08:45 |
| xx | oh, it even is tuesday indeed | 08:46 |
| xx | tuesday on two's day | 08:46 |
| oerheks | :-D | 08:46 |
| xx | would have gotten married today if I believed in marriage | 08:46 |
| oerheks | i love to marry, but my chihuahua might not let you into my bed | 08:47 |
| oerheks | ... cookies might do the trick for him | 08:47 |
| xx | interspecies relationships are a bit weird | 08:47 |
| xx | I stay away from that | 08:48 |
| Brainstorm | New from r/Coronavirus: Daily Discussion Thread | February 22, 2022: Please refer to our Wiki for more information on COVID-19 and our sub. You can find answers to frequently asked questions in our FAQ , where there is valuable information such as our: → https://old.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus/comments/syi1nr/daily_discussion_thread_february_22_2022/ | 09:07 |
| white2 | hello, what is the '#covid-19:matrix.org ' in topic? | 09:44 |
| white2 | %cases US | 09:45 |
| Brainstorm | white2: United States has had 80.1 million confirmed cases (24.3% of all people) and 960157 deaths (1.2% of cases; 1 in 343 people) as of 5 hours ago. 939.2 million tests were done (2.9 per capita, 8.5% positive). 244.9 million were vaccinated (74.3%). +15144 cases, +247 deaths since 21 hours ago. See https://offloop.net/covid19/?default=United%20States&legacy=no | 09:45 |
| Tuvix | white2: A reference to the bridged Matrix (chat system) channel. IRC and Matrix share a synchronized chat here | 09:49 |
| white2 | Tuvix, thank u | 09:50 |
| Brainstorm | Updates for Macau: +1 cases, +93 tests (1.1% positive) since a month ago | 10:01 |
| dTal | Crikey, from April, people with covid in the UK won't even be advised to stay home | 10:30 |
| Tuvix | Isn't it still guidance, but no longer required? | 10:35 |
| Tuvix | Or has even the "guidance" been changed starting then? | 10:35 |
| Tuvix | I thought it was simply suggested, no longer compulsory, akin to what we here in the US have had for coming up on a year now where you're "suggested" to isolate (but, don't have to) and "should" wear a mask after a few days in isolation (but aren't required to) and with "guidance" to get tested if you were a close-contact of a case (but, whatever, it's just a guideline.) | 10:37 |
| Brainstorm | New from StatNews: State legislatures renew the push to roll back Covid-related public health measures: Under a new bill in Wyoming, you could get up to six months jail time for asking about a person’s vaccination status if that information is to be used to… → https://www.statnews.com/2022/02/22/state-legislatures-renew-push-roll-back-covid-related-public-health-measures/ | 10:44 |
| Tuvix | “It is now time to move from protecting people with government interventions to vaccines and treatment as our first line of defense,” Johnson told MPs. <- Uh-huh, that's been the US approach to rely almost completely on vaccines, treatments, and people doing the right thing. I don't think it's compared well to other countries if you look at OWID metrics though. | 10:44 |
| Tuvix | "Johnson said the restrictions were being lifted now because levels of immunity are high, deaths low and because Omicron is less severe than other variants." (quoted from: https://www.laprensalatina.com/uk-government-to-abolish-most-covid-rules-self-isolation-in-england-2/ ). Bollocks, mister PM. | 10:46 |
| Tuvix | Low deaths? Britain? https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explorer?time=2021-04-01..latest&Metric=Vaccine+doses%2C+cases%2C+ICU+patients%2C+and+deaths&country=~GBR | 10:47 |
| Brainstorm | New from EMA: What's new: Medicine: Veterinary medicines European public assessment report (EPAR): Letifend, Canine leishmaniasis vaccine (recombinant protein), Date of authorisation: 20/04/2016, Revision: 11, Status: Authorised → https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/veterinary/EPAR/letifend | 10:54 |
| Brainstorm | New from EMA: Human medicine assessment reports: (news): Human medicines European public assessment report (EPAR): Flucelvax Tetra, influenza vaccine (surface antigen, inactivated, prepared in cell cultures), Influenza, Human, Date of authorisation: 12/12/2018, Revision: 10, Status: Authorised → https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/flucelvax-tetra | 11:03 |
| Brainstorm | New from COVID on Twitter: Covid Fact Check UK (@fact_covid): Once again for the most recent week we have fewer total deaths than was normal before the pandemic. twitter.com/actuarybyday/s… → https://twitter.com/fact_covid/status/1496069720562442242 | 11:32 |
| xx | Tuvix: now you see what politicians consider low deaths | 11:53 |
| xx | or at least what UK politicians do | 11:53 |
| Tuvix | "now" ? | 11:53 |
| Tuvix | You speak as if I haven't been pointing this out, for weeks. | 11:53 |
| xx | fair | 11:53 |
| xx | is there a UK queen status tracker anywhere? | 11:54 |
| xx | I'd imagine there'd be a whole website dedicated to that by now | 11:54 |
| dTal | Tuvix: It's no longer *required* from Friday. It won't even be *guidance* come April. | 11:59 |
| dTal | It's a shocking abdication of responsibility and all good sense. | 11:59 |
| Tuvix | It's outright banking on things to improve as quickly and completely as they did after the Alpha surge last winter. | 12:00 |
| Brainstorm | New from r/COVID19: COVID19: Occurrence and significance of Omicron BA.1 infection followed by BA.2 reinfection → https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/sykltt/occurrence_and_significance_of_omicron_ba1/ | 12:01 |
| Tuvix | Politicians clearly believe more strongly in their crystal ball that the career medical scientists, though | 12:01 |
| Tuvix | *than the | 12:02 |
| xx | the queen status might change things | 12:02 |
| Tuvix | I'm not so sure of that; a number of notable deaths in the US didn't change much, even when it was someone on say right-wing radio or TV talk shows who died after promoting COVID anti-science. | 12:04 |
| xx | yeah, but it's the UK queen, surely she's more notable. | 12:06 |
| Brainstorm | Updates for Brunei: +3251 cases, +1 deaths since 23 hours ago | 12:06 |
| xx | if she ends up fine, then they'll completely declare covid over. If not, then they might take it more seriously. | 12:06 |
| Tuvix | She's also quite old, relatively speaking. For people who have tied their personal identity to the politics of COVID, they don't tend to be convinced no matter how much logic would say otherwise. | 12:07 |
| Tuvix | Statistically, one death alone is fairly meaningless; scientifically it wouldn't matter one way or the other, but I'm sure there are *some* people who may take note if someone of her position falls to the disease. | 12:09 |
| xx | or if she ends up having long-covid, that might make others realize that long-covid is a thing | 12:12 |
| dTal | she's not gonna have long anything | 12:21 |
| xx | ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ | 12:22 |
| xx | 95yo with no publicly known comorbidities? | 12:23 |
| xx | she'll be around for a long time | 12:23 |
| xx | (unless covid...) | 12:23 |
| Brainstorm | New from BMJ: Poorer access to community mental health services may have led to rise in detentions: Reduced access to community mental health services during the covid pandemic may have contributed to an increase in the number of people being detained under the Mental Health Act, England’s health... → http://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o450.short | 12:30 |
| Brainstorm | New from ECDC: ECDC: Data on the daily number of new reported COVID-19 cases and deaths by EU/EEA country → https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/data-daily-new-cases-covid-19-eueea-country | 12:50 |
| Brainstorm | New from ECDC: Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C): A webinar on was jointly organised by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) and the European Society of Paediatric Infectious Diseases (ESPID) on 20 January 2022. → https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/multisystem-inflammatory-syndrome-children-mis-c | 12:59 |
| Brainstorm | Updates for Indonesia: +57491 cases, +257 deaths, +537081 tests (10.7% positive) since a day ago | 13:09 |
| Brainstorm | New from ECDC: Data on COVID-19 vaccination in the EU/EEA: Data in various file formats with information on COVID-19 vaccine doses administered, manufacturers, and target groups in the EU/EEA. → https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/data-covid-19-vaccination-eu-eea | 13:09 |
| Brainstorm | New from Politico: Coronavirus in Europe: Live data tracker: More than two years since the first reports about a new novel coronavirus outbreak, Europe is still struggling with the pandemic. Citizens, politicians and health experts continue to closely monitor trends in daily new cases, [... want %more?] → https://www.politico.eu/article/coronavirus-in-europe-live-data-tracker/ | 13:29 |
| Brainstorm | New from Politico: Coronavirus: Queen Elizabeth cancels virtual engagements after suffering COVID symptoms → https://www.politico.eu/article/queen-elizabeth-cancel-virtual-engagement-covid-symptom/ | 13:39 |
| Brainstorm | New from COVID on Twitter: Covid Fact Check UK (@fact_covid): Seems sensible to start winding down the dashboard updates a bit, as numbers continue to fall steadily.It will no longer be updated on weekends. Monday’s data will include figures from Saturday & Sunday.Thanks to all the team for their ongoing [... want %more?] → https://twitter.com/fact_covid/status/1496105309781299200 | 13:59 |
| Brainstorm | Updates for France: +373 deaths since 14 hours ago | 14:11 |
| Brainstorm | New from BBC Health: Queen cancels engagements as mild Covid persists: She still has mild Covid symptoms, but will continue working on light duties, Buckingham Palace says. → https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60477065 | 14:19 |
| Brainstorm | New from r/Coronavirus: Coronavirus: US daily death average falls below 2,000 for first time in a month → https://old.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus/comments/syn799/us_daily_death_average_falls_below_2000_for_first/ | 14:58 |
| Brainstorm | Updates for Germany: +138711 cases since 23 hours ago | 15:01 |
| Brainstorm | New from COVID on Twitter: Eric Topol (@EricTopol): Reassuring on the BA.2 variant: reinfections after BA.1 with it can occur, they are rare, mostly in unvaccinated, and mildmedrxiv.org/content/10.110… data from 47 BA.2 reinfection cases in Denmark pic.twitter.com/l8GFGZrdhJ → https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1496122048196005888 | 15:08 |
| Brainstorm | New from StatNews: Pharma: STAT+: Pharmalittle: Sacklers offer to pay $6 billion to settle Purdue bankruptcy; pharmacies push for Covid-19 pill payments → https://www.statnews.com/pharmalot/2022/02/22/covid19-vaccine-pharmacy-purdue-opioid-astrazeneca-who/ | 15:36 |
| Brainstorm | New from COVID on Twitter: Eric Topol (@EricTopol): To navigate a pandemic we need the data—all of it—in a machine readable format. Transparency, not fancy dashboards, needs to be the priorityWisdom from @redouad @OurWorldInData @Nature nature.com/articles/d4158… pic.twitter.com/P2yUECxkJ2 → https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1496135944193425414 | 15:56 |
| Brainstorm | New from COVID on Twitter: Marc Veldhoen (@Marc_Veld): BA.2 infection after BA.1 is very rare. BA.2 mainly infects the unvaccinated:Occurrence and significance of Omicron BA.1 infection followed by BA.2 reinfectionmedrxiv.org/content/10.110… → https://twitter.com/Marc_Veld/status/1496139725450661889 | 16:16 |
| Brainstorm | New from EMA: Human medicine assessment reports: (news): Human medicines European public assessment report (EPAR): Comirnaty, Tozinameran,COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine (nucleoside modified), COVID-19 virus infection, Date of authorisation: 21/12/2020, Revision: 22, Status: Authorised → https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/comirnaty | 16:36 |
| Brainstorm | New from COVID on Twitter: CoV-Spectrum (@covSpectrum): It is now possible to download SARS-CoV-2 FASTAs for multiple sequences deposited in Genbank/NCBI using LAPIS (covSpectrum's backend API) using their accession IDs as follows:lapis.cov-spectrum.org/open/v1/sample… 1/ pic.twitter.com/ybwRUDPbIv → https://twitter.com/covSpectrum/status/1496149450410057730 | 16:56 |
| Brainstorm | Updates for Myanmar: +3563 cases, +6 deaths, +33087 tests (10.8% positive) since 23 hours ago — Germany: +145594 cases, +284 deaths since 23 hours ago — Canada: +1739 cases since 19 hours ago | 17:06 |
| Brainstorm | New from LitCovid: (news): Effectiveness of Inactivated COVID-19 Vaccines Against Symptomatic, Pneumonia, and Severe Disease Caused by the Delta Variant: Real World Study and Evidence - China, 2021. → https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/research/coronavirus/publication/35186369 | 17:07 |
| Brainstorm | New from BBC Health: (news): Covid: Sajid Javid defends timing of end to Covid rules and free tests → https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60474996 | 18:36 |
| Brainstorm | Updates for Malaysia: +27179 cases, +43 deaths since a day ago — Italy: +60137 cases, +322 deaths, +603639 tests (10.0% positive) since 23 hours ago | 19:11 |
| Brainstorm | New from Contagion Live: us: Moderna Commences Phase 3 Trial for Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) Vaccine → https://www.contagionlive.com/view/moderna-commences-phase-3-trial-for-respiratory-syncytial-virus-rsv-vaccine | 19:15 |
| Brainstorm | New from Contagion Live: Moderna Approved for Phase 3 Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) Vaccine Trial: Moderna was endorsed to begin phase 3 clinical trials for mRNA-1345, what could be the first respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine. → https://www.contagionlive.com/view/moderna-approved-for-phase-3-respiratory-syncytial-virus-rsv-vaccine-trial | 19:25 |
| Brainstorm | New from Reddit (test): CoronaVirus_2019_nCoV: Stealth BA.2 Omicron Variant Can Reinfect People Who Had BA.1, Study Finds - preprint, Denmark → https://old.reddit.com/r/CoronaVirus_2019_nCoV/comments/syuohm/stealth_ba2_omicron_variant_can_reinfect_people/ | 19:35 |
| Brainstorm | New from Reddit (test): Covid2019: The effect of COVID-19 vaccination on long COVID symptoms | preprint → https://old.reddit.com/r/Covid2019/comments/syv27e/the_effect_of_covid19_vaccination_on_long_covid/ | 19:54 |
| Brainstorm | Updates for Singapore: +26032 cases, +4 deaths since a day ago — United Kingdom: +41478 cases, +207 deaths since 23 hours ago — Canada: +5075 cases, +56 deaths since 22 hours ago | 20:01 |
| Brainstorm | New from Reddit (test): China_Flu: Increased Potency and Breadth of SARS-CoV-2 Neutralizing Antibodies After a Third mRNA Vaccine Dose → https://old.reddit.com/r/China_Flu/comments/syv8s3/increased_potency_and_breadth_of_sarscov2/ | 20:04 |
| Brainstorm | New from COVID on Twitter: Marc Veldhoen (@Marc_Veld): Once again, the NYT has gorgeous drawings in an interactive report; this time; LongCOVID19nytimes.com/interactive/20… → https://twitter.com/Marc_Veld/status/1496200493906939905 | 20:14 |
| Brainstorm | New from CIDRAP: 3 COVID vaccine doses 99% effective against Omicron, Delta hospitalization: Mary Van Beusekom | News Writer | CIDRAP News Feb 22, 2022 Three Moderna doses were more effective against Delta than against Omicron, and protection waned [... want %more?] → https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2022/02/3-covid-vaccine-doses-99-effective-against-omicron-delta-hospitalization | 20:44 |
| Arsanerit | my pregnant sister tested positive today | 20:48 |
| mrdata | oh, sympathies | 20:50 |
| mrdata | as i understand it there is risk | 20:50 |
| Arsanerit | She had her booster shot, but I hope all will be fine. | 20:51 |
| Brainstorm | New from COVID on Twitter: Marc Veldhoen (@Marc_Veld): And 3-dose effectiveness against infection (NOT disease), which will wane, especially against Omicron; but effectiveness against disease will remain. It means re-infections will take place, but symptoms will be absent to mild for most of us. pic.twitter.com/Sd01RLOZVJ → https://twitter.com/Marc_Veld/status/1496210975762038784 | 20:54 |
| Brainstorm | New from CIDRAP: COVID-19 Scan for Feb 22, 2022: Omicron subvariant reinfection SARS-CoV-2 variants in deer COVID-19 severity by ZIP code → https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2022/02/covid-19-scan-feb-22-2022 | 21:04 |
| Brainstorm | Updates for France: +106918 cases, +658 deaths since 21 hours ago — Spain: +22194 cases, +173 deaths since a day ago | 22:00 |
| Brainstorm | New from CIDRAP: Hong Kong to harness mass testing in Omicron battle: Lisa Schnirring and Stephanie Soucheray | Staff Writers | CIDRAP News Feb 22, 2022 In US news, the FDA is considering whether a fourth mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose will be necessary. → https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2022/02/hong-kong-harness-mass-testing-omicron-battle | 22:15 |
| Brainstorm | New from COVID on Twitter: Eric Topol (@EricTopol): The Neanderthal-derived chromosome 3 locus that has been established to be associated with risk of severe Covid may be protective vs HIV, a 27% less risk of infectionpnas.org/content/119/9/…@MPI_EVA_Leipzig @karolinskainst @PNASNews pic.twitter.com/P5XUkIqqEa → https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1496233792025026571 | 22:25 |
| Brainstorm | New from StatNews: Pharma: STAT+: Patient advocates sue South African government over access to Covid-19 vaccine contracts → https://www.statnews.com/pharmalot/2022/02/22/covid19-vaccine-south-africa-transparency-contracts/ | 22:45 |
| Brainstorm | Updates for Canada: +6013 cases, +67 deaths since 20 hours ago — Tonga: +20 cases since 3 days ago — United Kingdom: +41566 cases since 23 hours ago | 23:02 |
| Brainstorm | New from COVID on Twitter: Eric Topol (@EricTopol): For example, the @CDCgov knew the data for benefit of boosters vs Covid hospitalizations for ages 18-49 years but decided not to publish it for weeks. That's unacceptable.nytimes.com/2022/02/20/hea… pic.twitter.com/YNAWTBDHZF → https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1496242649795383296 | 23:04 |
| Brainstorm | New from NPR Science: Who might benefit from a 4th shot — and who might not: Some countries are moving ahead with plans to offer a fourth dose of vaccine. But studies are raising questions about the potential advantages of this extra booster. → https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2022/02/22/1029057935/who-might-benefit-from-a-4th-shot-and-who-might-not | 23:24 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!