COVID-19: More Great News

AtomicPiss

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zer6omW0vnU

GrundleStiltzkin

One guy looks like a Russian plant to me.

SFGbob

GrundleStiltzkin said:

One guy looks like a Russian plant to me.

You can't trust the Jooooooooows.

PurpleThrobber

SFGbob said:

GrundleStiltzkin said:

One guy looks like a Russian plant to me.

You can't trust the Jooooooooows.

I'd like to try.

LoneStarDawg

Is this really a thing? I couldn’t understand why trump wouldn’t shut up about this. It’s generic drugs so it’s not like he’s getting kickbacks

AtomicPiss

LoneStarDawg said:

Is this really a thing? I couldn’t understand why trump wouldn’t shut up about this. It’s generic drugs so it’s not like he’s getting kickbacks

You don't think he wants people to get better?

Sledog

LoneStarDawg

DerekJohnson said:

LoneStarDawg said:

Is this really a thing? I couldn’t understand why trump wouldn’t shut up about this. It’s generic drugs so it’s not like he’s getting kickbacks

You don't think he wants people to get better?

He wants the economy back, but it’s weird having him throw a bunch of drug names out there and say “give it a whirl, you’ve got nothing to lose” it’s like he’s selling raffle tickets.

WestlinnDuck

It's almost like you paid for dinner before phu*cking the sh*t out of that strawman's ass, but then you neverTrumpers weren't much into foreplay. If I were Texas I'd take back your star. I'd tell you to "give it a whirl" and man up but that ship apparently sailed a long time ago.

LoneStarDawg

We had some belly laughs in the media room at Lynn’s expense

whatshouldicareabout

LoneStarDawg said:

Is this really a thing? I couldn’t understand why trump wouldn’t shut up about this. It’s generic drugs so it’s not like he’s getting kickbacks

I provided a critic of some of the issues that lead to bias and uncertainty in the first trial here: https://hardcorehusky.com/discussion/comment/1295333/#Comment_1295333 of which, @GrundleStiltzkin is the only one here who enjoys a wall of text.

For the video above, he mentions that 100% of the patients recovered in 6 days, but that's not true. Only 20 of the 36 were in the experimental arm, and 6 of the 26 who received the drug were never reported on because some were transferred to the ICU (and lost to follow-up) and one died. 14/20 had viral clearance on day 6, but as I mentioned above, it's not as important as something like death or hospital discharge, especially when people who tested negative on day 6 has positive results later and some that had positive results on day 6 tested negative later.

Just finished reviewing the second study that is mentioned in the video and it does correct a number of issues that were present in the first study, most notably correcting for reporting on disease severity at baseline through the National Emergency Warning System (NEWS, a composite of various measures of symptoms and needs to define disease severity as low, medium, or high). The outcomes of the updated study are also more meaningful, which are need for aggressive oxygen therapy or transfer to ICU. They also did ECGs which means the authors realized that there is a huge issue with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin causing QT prolongation in certain patients which would lead to torsades de pointes.

The patients enrolled in this study were primarily afebrile (85%) and had low NEWS scores (92%). This means that 12 of the 80 had fever and 6 of the 80 had either medium (4) or high (2) severity of disease. Per table 1, 10 (12.5%) patients in the study were either 70 years of age or older.

The study had 65/80 (81.3%) with been discharged at the time the article was published, with 61/65 in the low NEWS category. One older person with severe disease died.

So, overall, the study is much better, but still leaves some questions about how it compares to no therapy. Without a control group, we can try to use the general trends we're seeing as a way to put these results in context. A 1% death rate in the general population and most patients ending up better seems pretty similar to what other posters here feel about the severity of disease and the mortality rate, especially since most of the patients enrolled in the study were younger than 70 and had mild disease severity.

MelloDawg

whatshouldicareabout said:

LoneStarDawg said:

Is this really a thing? I couldn’t understand why trump wouldn’t shut up about this. It’s generic drugs so it’s not like he’s getting kickbacks

I provided a critic of some of the issues that lead to bias and uncertainty in the first trial here: https://hardcorehusky.com/discussion/comment/1295333/#Comment_1295333 of which, @GrundleStiltzkin is the only one here who enjoys a wall of text.

For the video above, he mentions that 100% of the patients recovered in 6 days, but that's not true. Only 20 of the 36 were in the experimental arm, and 6 of the 26 who received the drug were never reported on because some were transferred to the ICU (and lost to follow-up) and one died. 14/20 had viral clearance on day 6, but as I mentioned above, it's not as important as something like death or hospital discharge, especially when people who tested negative on day 6 has positive results later and some that had positive results on day 6 tested negative later.

Just finished reviewing the second study that is mentioned in the video and it does correct a number of issues that were present in the first study, most notably correcting for reporting on disease severity at baseline through the National Emergency Warning System (NEWS, a composite of various measures of symptoms and needs to define disease severity as low, medium, or high). The outcomes of the updated study are also more meaningful, which are need for aggressive oxygen therapy or transfer to ICU. They also did ECGs which means the authors realized that there is a huge issue with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin causing QT prolongation in certain patients which would lead to torsades de pointes.

The patients enrolled in this study were primarily afebrile (85%) and had low NEWS scores (92%). This means that 12 of the 80 had fever and 6 of the 80 had either medium (4) or high (2) severity of disease. Per table 1, 10 (12.5%) patients in the study were either 70 years of age or older.

The study had 65/80 (81.3%) with been discharged at the time the article was published, with 61/65 in the low NEWS category. One older person with severe disease died.

So, overall, the study is much better, but still leaves some questions about how it compares to no therapy. Without a control group, we can try to use the general trends we're seeing as a way to put these results in context. A 1% death rate in the general population and most patients ending up better seems pretty similar to what other posters here feel about the severity of disease and the mortality rate, especially since most of the patients enrolled in the study were younger than 70 and had mild disease severity.

It sounds like there should be a trial process that evaluates the efficacy of the drug before it’s administered rather than the “just take it” approach.

Bob_C

MelloDawg said:

whatshouldicareabout said:

LoneStarDawg said:

Is this really a thing? I couldn’t understand why trump wouldn’t shut up about this. It’s generic drugs so it’s not like he’s getting kickbacks

I provided a critic of some of the issues that lead to bias and uncertainty in the first trial here: https://hardcorehusky.com/discussion/comment/1295333/#Comment_1295333 of which, @GrundleStiltzkin is the only one here who enjoys a wall of text.

For the video above, he mentions that 100% of the patients recovered in 6 days, but that's not true. Only 20 of the 36 were in the experimental arm, and 6 of the 26 who received the drug were never reported on because some were transferred to the ICU (and lost to follow-up) and one died. 14/20 had viral clearance on day 6, but as I mentioned above, it's not as important as something like death or hospital discharge, especially when people who tested negative on day 6 has positive results later and some that had positive results on day 6 tested negative later.

Just finished reviewing the second study that is mentioned in the video and it does correct a number of issues that were present in the first study, most notably correcting for reporting on disease severity at baseline through the National Emergency Warning System (NEWS, a composite of various measures of symptoms and needs to define disease severity as low, medium, or high). The outcomes of the updated study are also more meaningful, which are need for aggressive oxygen therapy or transfer to ICU. They also did ECGs which means the authors realized that there is a huge issue with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin causing QT prolongation in certain patients which would lead to torsades de pointes.

The patients enrolled in this study were primarily afebrile (85%) and had low NEWS scores (92%). This means that 12 of the 80 had fever and 6 of the 80 had either medium (4) or high (2) severity of disease. Per table 1, 10 (12.5%) patients in the study were either 70 years of age or older.

The study had 65/80 (81.3%) with been discharged at the time the article was published, with 61/65 in the low NEWS category. One older person with severe disease died.

So, overall, the study is much better, but still leaves some questions about how it compares to no therapy. Without a control group, we can try to use the general trends we're seeing as a way to put these results in context. A 1% death rate in the general population and most patients ending up better seems pretty similar to what other posters here feel about the severity of disease and the mortality rate, especially since most of the patients enrolled in the study were younger than 70 and had mild disease severity.

It sounds like there should be a trial process that evaluates the efficacy of the drug before it’s administered rather than the “just take it” approach.

Can’t be too careful.

LoneStarDawg

whatshouldicareabout said:

LoneStarDawg said:

Is this really a thing? I couldn’t understand why trump wouldn’t shut up about this. It’s generic drugs so it’s not like he’s getting kickbacks

I provided a critic of some of the issues that lead to bias and uncertainty in the first trial here: https://hardcorehusky.com/discussion/comment/1295333/#Comment_1295333 of which, @GrundleStiltzkin is the only one here who enjoys a wall of text.

For the video above, he mentions that 100% of the patients recovered in 6 days, but that's not true. Only 20 of the 36 were in the experimental arm, and 6 of the 26 who received the drug were never reported on because some were transferred to the ICU (and lost to follow-up) and one died. 14/20 had viral clearance on day 6, but as I mentioned above, it's not as important as something like death or hospital discharge, especially when people who tested negative on day 6 has positive results later and some that had positive results on day 6 tested negative later.

Just finished reviewing the second study that is mentioned in the video and it does correct a number of issues that were present in the first study, most notably correcting for reporting on disease severity at baseline through the National Emergency Warning System (NEWS, a composite of various measures of symptoms and needs to define disease severity as low, medium, or high). The outcomes of the updated study are also more meaningful, which are need for aggressive oxygen therapy or transfer to ICU. They also did ECGs which means the authors realized that there is a huge issue with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin causing QT prolongation in certain patients which would lead to torsades de pointes.

The patients enrolled in this study were primarily afebrile (85%) and had low NEWS scores (92%). This means that 12 of the 80 had fever and 6 of the 80 had either medium (4) or high (2) severity of disease. Per table 1, 10 (12.5%) patients in the study were either 70 years of age or older.

The study had 65/80 (81.3%) with been discharged at the time the article was published, with 61/65 in the low NEWS category. One older person with severe disease died.

So, overall, the study is much better, but still leaves some questions about how it compares to no therapy. Without a control group, we can try to use the general trends we're seeing as a way to put these results in context. A 1% death rate in the general population and most patients ending up better seems pretty similar to what other posters here feel about the severity of disease and the mortality rate, especially since most of the patients enrolled in the study were younger than 70 and had mild disease severity.

Yeah I read up a bit after making that comment. We will see how it plays out, would be nice to soften and shorten the severity of this thing so we can refactor hospitals and timelines. And I started taking zinc today, I’m pissing a rainbow of vitamins right now.

MelloDawg

LoneStarDawg said:

whatshouldicareabout said:

LoneStarDawg said:

Is this really a thing? I couldn’t understand why trump wouldn’t shut up about this. It’s generic drugs so it’s not like he’s getting kickbacks

I provided a critic of some of the issues that lead to bias and uncertainty in the first trial here: https://hardcorehusky.com/discussion/comment/1295333/#Comment_1295333 of which, @GrundleStiltzkin is the only one here who enjoys a wall of text.

For the video above, he mentions that 100% of the patients recovered in 6 days, but that's not true. Only 20 of the 36 were in the experimental arm, and 6 of the 26 who received the drug were never reported on because some were transferred to the ICU (and lost to follow-up) and one died. 14/20 had viral clearance on day 6, but as I mentioned above, it's not as important as something like death or hospital discharge, especially when people who tested negative on day 6 has positive results later and some that had positive results on day 6 tested negative later.

Just finished reviewing the second study that is mentioned in the video and it does correct a number of issues that were present in the first study, most notably correcting for reporting on disease severity at baseline through the National Emergency Warning System (NEWS, a composite of various measures of symptoms and needs to define disease severity as low, medium, or high). The outcomes of the updated study are also more meaningful, which are need for aggressive oxygen therapy or transfer to ICU. They also did ECGs which means the authors realized that there is a huge issue with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin causing QT prolongation in certain patients which would lead to torsades de pointes.

The patients enrolled in this study were primarily afebrile (85%) and had low NEWS scores (92%). This means that 12 of the 80 had fever and 6 of the 80 had either medium (4) or high (2) severity of disease. Per table 1, 10 (12.5%) patients in the study were either 70 years of age or older.

The study had 65/80 (81.3%) with been discharged at the time the article was published, with 61/65 in the low NEWS category. One older person with severe disease died.

So, overall, the study is much better, but still leaves some questions about how it compares to no therapy. Without a control group, we can try to use the general trends we're seeing as a way to put these results in context. A 1% death rate in the general population and most patients ending up better seems pretty similar to what other posters here feel about the severity of disease and the mortality rate, especially since most of the patients enrolled in the study were younger than 70 and had mild disease severity.

Yeah I read up a bit after making that comment. We will see how it plays out, would be nice to soften and shorten the severity of this thing so we can refactor hospitals and timelines. And I started taking zinc today, I’m pissing a rainbow of vitamins right now.

I have a coworker who swears by zinc. His desk looks like a GNC if the GNC was run by Carole Baskin.

LoneStarDawg

MelloDawg said:

LoneStarDawg said:

whatshouldicareabout said:

LoneStarDawg said:

Is this really a thing? I couldn’t understand why trump wouldn’t shut up about this. It’s generic drugs so it’s not like he’s getting kickbacks

I provided a critic of some of the issues that lead to bias and uncertainty in the first trial here: https://hardcorehusky.com/discussion/comment/1295333/#Comment_1295333 of which, @GrundleStiltzkin is the only one here who enjoys a wall of text.

For the video above, he mentions that 100% of the patients recovered in 6 days, but that's not true. Only 20 of the 36 were in the experimental arm, and 6 of the 26 who received the drug were never reported on because some were transferred to the ICU (and lost to follow-up) and one died. 14/20 had viral clearance on day 6, but as I mentioned above, it's not as important as something like death or hospital discharge, especially when people who tested negative on day 6 has positive results later and some that had positive results on day 6 tested negative later.

Just finished reviewing the second study that is mentioned in the video and it does correct a number of issues that were present in the first study, most notably correcting for reporting on disease severity at baseline through the National Emergency Warning System (NEWS, a composite of various measures of symptoms and needs to define disease severity as low, medium, or high). The outcomes of the updated study are also more meaningful, which are need for aggressive oxygen therapy or transfer to ICU. They also did ECGs which means the authors realized that there is a huge issue with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin causing QT prolongation in certain patients which would lead to torsades de pointes.

The patients enrolled in this study were primarily afebrile (85%) and had low NEWS scores (92%). This means that 12 of the 80 had fever and 6 of the 80 had either medium (4) or high (2) severity of disease. Per table 1, 10 (12.5%) patients in the study were either 70 years of age or older.

The study had 65/80 (81.3%) with been discharged at the time the article was published, with 61/65 in the low NEWS category. One older person with severe disease died.

So, overall, the study is much better, but still leaves some questions about how it compares to no therapy. Without a control group, we can try to use the general trends we're seeing as a way to put these results in context. A 1% death rate in the general population and most patients ending up better seems pretty similar to what other posters here feel about the severity of disease and the mortality rate, especially since most of the patients enrolled in the study were younger than 70 and had mild disease severity.

Yeah I read up a bit after making that comment. We will see how it plays out, would be nice to soften and shorten the severity of this thing so we can refactor hospitals and timelines. And I started taking zinc today, I’m pissing a rainbow of vitamins right now.

I have a coworker who swears by zinc. His desk looks like a GNC if the GNC was run by Carole Baskin.

I don’t know what that means but chins for carol fucking baskin.

Pitchfork51

Someone tell me if this means drumpf is finished or not

AtomicPiss

LoneStarDawg said:

DerekJohnson said:

LoneStarDawg said:

Is this really a thing? I couldn’t understand why trump wouldn’t shut up about this. It’s generic drugs so it’s not like he’s getting kickbacks

You don't think he wants people to get better?

He wants the economy back, but it’s weird having him throw a bunch of drug names out there and say “give it a whirl, you’ve got nothing to lose” it’s like he’s selling raffle tickets.

I'll give you that

SpoonieLuv