Coronavirus COVID-19 Thread

[Radegast74]

I think this is the start of a bad trend:

Idaho begins rationing care as hospitals crumple under COVID load

“Crisis standards of care is a last resort. It means we have exhausted our resources.”…

arstechnica.com

I don't have time to pull together all the graphs and ICU bed availabilities, but unless there is a downtick in COVID cases *soon* (like, this month) it looks like this winter will be worse than last winter (before we even had a vaccine!).

Right now, cases are increasing and hospitals are overwhelmed. Even with around 60% or so of the country vaccinated, that still leaves a whopping 80 miillon or so unvaccinated...and there is a huge discrepancy in vaccination rates across different states/regions.

I hope I'm wrong, but, things do NOT look good right now.

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

COVID Catharsis Corner - Some reports from around the world from today, Wednesday 8th of September:

- World: Global Confirmed 222,273,570, Global Deaths 4,591,915

- Vaccines: AstraZeneca bosses warn against rush for boosters

- Vaccines: Covax 575m doses short of previous estimates

- US: Nearly 300% more Covid patients in US hospitals than a year ago

- Germany: German Covid super-spreader event driven by poor ventilation, study finds

- Scotland: School closed after 'significant' Covid outbreak

- Australia: Australia to support vaccine IP waiver after months of pressure from human rights groups

- Czech Republic: Czech Republic records highest daily Covid caseload since May

- New Zealand: New Zealand to rethink plan to reopen borders amid Delta outbreak

- World: The pandemic had a “devastating” impact on the fight against HIV, tuberculosis and malaria in 2020

 

[Montoya]

The whole Ivermectin business makes no sense to me. It's an anti-parasitic drug to treat well....parasites. COVID19 is a VIRUS.

Sure it may have some effect on COVID19 when used in vitro but you'll need to use it in such high doses that it's basically lethal and kills the host.....you know...human patients. Whoops.

I went for dip down that rabbit hole to understand it a bit better.

I googled up the Ivermectin study from Egypt that got this whole this going and read it. Even my medically uneducated ass thought it probably sounded good, so I can understand why so many facebook armchair doctors think its the secret cure.

Then you go and hear what an actual doctor with training says about the study:

TikTok - Make Your Day

Yeah its tiktok, but the doctor gives you his analysis and makes you realize your facebook posting uncle doesnt know shit.

 

[Bambooza]

I went for dip down that rabbit hole to understand it a bit better.

I googled up the Ivermectin study from Egypt that got this whole this going and read it. Even my medically uneducated ass thought it probably sounded good, so I can understand why so many facebook armchair doctors think its the secret cure.

Then you go and hear what an actual doctor with training says about the study:

Yeah its tiktok, but the doctor gives you his analysis and makes you realize your facebook posting uncle doesnt know shit.

Indeed. I wouldn't downplay the study as it was done correctly while the sample size was small it's still typical of initial research studies and the exclusion would be typical of reducing the risk of harm in the test group from complications by the use of Ivermectin and doxycycline. But no the study and following paper are fine as it was a small-scale trial to see if there was any validity to the hypothesis and thus funding for a large-scale study and subsequent suggested alteration to covid treatment options. So while helpful to the medical and research community I can easily see it being misleading and harmful to the Facebook and TikTok community.

While I would hope most people would seek the medical opinion of doctors they trust, I also understand we have darwin awards for a reason.

Even now being apple flavored I can't imagine it would taste that great. Horses never seemed to like it and would spit it out if no placed in the back of their mouth.

 

[Vavrik]

, I also understand we have darwin awards for a reason.

By the way, spot on. But the bit above... Darwin Awards? ROFLMAO!

 

[Montoya]

Indeed. I wouldn't downplay the study as it was done correctly while the sample size was small it's still typical of initial research

Here is why noobs like us miss the point

If the study was done with 25 healthy adults in the 20-29yr age group. No overweight, health issues, no allergies, no diabetes, no previous chronic illness... the expectation is that everybody survives anyway. Is this proof that Ivermectin cures covid?

Do the same study with overweight 80yr olds and your results change dramatically. Details about the group demo was not mentioned in the study.

 

[Jolly_Green_Giant]

A five-day course of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 may reduce the duration of illness - PubMed (nih.gov)

I don't see the problem with doctors trying this if they say its safe and effective at treating COVID-19. I only read the abstract but its pretty clear its worth a shot. Its the same with Hydroxychloroquine

Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19: results of an open-label non-randomized clinical trial - PubMed (nih.gov)

And how about regeneron?

REGN-COV2, a Neutralizing Antibody Cocktail, in Outpatients with Covid-19 - PubMed (nih.gov)

Again, I'm only reading abstracts and conclusions, but they all say each of those drugs showed improvement and are safe and effective.

As a doctor youre going to want all the tools on the table for you to treat your patient.


EDIT:

And if you want a better study, once youve established these drugs are safe, you allow doctors to use these drugs so they can report the patient data back to you. Once they get more data they can really start to understand how effective it really is and on what age group / comorbidities.


EDIT2:

To be clear, the people taking it off the shelf are idiots. Talk to your doctor.

 

[Bambooza]

Here is why noobs like us miss the point

If the study was done with 25 healthy adults in the 20-29yr age group. No overweight, health issues, no allergies, no diabetes, no previous chronic illness... the expectation is that everybody survives anyway. Is this proof that Ivermectin cures covid?

Do the same study with overweight 80yr olds and your results change dramatically. Details about the group demo was not mentioned in the study.

No, you are right there is no proof that Ivermectin cures covid or as @Jolly_Green_Giant mentioned Regeneron or any other drug. These kinds of studies are done on as small of a subset as possible to limit variables to see if there is any sort of slight differences in the groups and often it's done at the clinic level on the cheap (and why p-hacking is so prevalent and dangerous). They normally would publish the results as they did then use that to secure a far larger funding to increase the test size and that is where they include things like demographics, severity, and complications across multiple teams and sites. While I am not sure how or if it will continue as the principal study was done in Eygpt but here in the States this sort of bad publicity would often kill any further study.

I am not advocating or saying that the study conclusively proved anything. All I am saying is they did their due diligence in a well-crafted study that showed results that should be investigated further. if it is or not now that it has created such bad publicity by media who should have asked experts in the field what it means instead of jumping on to either fully supporting it as a miracle cure or bashing it as some sort of snake oil when the truth is far more nuanced in that they found a difference that needs further study and a far bigger sample size to see if it is anything and thus more funding.

While I am very skeptical about Ivermectin having any impact on a covid infection, I cannot rule out the possibility that they truly did find something, and am hopefully they find the funding to continue their research.

If I had covid and was dyeing would I take Ivermectin? Sometimes the hail mary pass pans out and in this case what does one have to lose? Of course, the flip side is that you could not be as close to death as you think or you could just have a close brush with death and would recovery anyways even without any sort of intervention or the drug was the final straw and you would have lived otherwise. So many what-ifs and it goes to show that as far as our medical science has pushed the boundaries we still really don't know much.

 

[Vavrik]

As a doctor youre going to want all the tools on the table for you to treat your patient.

Fortunately, that is not how science is done. The existence of an initial study is evidence, but not definitive evidence that a treatment works. If the treatment survives the reproducibility test, it is evidence that a further trial is perhaps warranted.
Informed consent: This period is typically when the doctor sits down with their patient or in the case of a patient who is not lucid the patients next of kin, and explains the experimental nature of the treatment and the risks vs potential rewards. It does not mean (i.e. it is not evidence that) the treatment actually works, and is safe.

By the way, I think the last one of the 3 you listed is still being researched as a treatment of some patients in some conditions.

None of that means that someone should go out to the nearest Tractor Supply store to buy a deworming treatment for cows and horses. It means talk to a doctor.

 

[Jolly_Green_Giant]

I take medication that's not FDA approved for what it's treating. My doctor said there have been studies done that show positive results so I'm prescribed it anyways. It works.

The president was prescribed some of these drugs at the discretion of the doctors at walter reed medical center and johns hopkins medicine.

Not so relevant but apparently joe rogans doctors gave him ivormectin, I don't automatically think those doctors that gave him that are idiots.

Fortunately, that is not how science is done.

What do you mean by this? I think you misunderstood me, I'm just saying that the more options the doctor has the better. I'm sure the Docs qualified to decide if the meds are right or wrong for their patient, a doctors knowledge goes without saying.

 

[Montoya]

Not so relevant but apparently joe rogans doctors gave him ivormectin

Most likely because he asked his personal doctor for it. There is not a single doctor working the ER that will prescribe it for incoming COVID patients.

 

[Jolly_Green_Giant]

There is not a single doctor working the ER that will prescribe it for incoming COVID patients.

I'm not arguing where and when, I'm saying according to studies published by the NIH its safe to use and some preliminary studies they've published have shown positive results. Some doctors out there might follow that literature or they might have new literature that theyre reading.

Aside with the rage bait posts about people taking horse medicine, what's specifically the problem with saying the doctors prescribing these drugs are competent and know what theyre doing.

 

[Aramsolari]

…Or we could all get the jabs and not have to worry about hydroxycholoquin, remdesivir, ivermectin, etc, etc.

There already exists something that protects us from COVID19 and that’s the vaccines. There are now dozens of COVID19 vaccines of various types independently developed by pharmaceutical companies all over the world. They’re of differing efficacy and effectiveness but overall they’re working.

I really don’t understand this weird anti-vaccination hesitation going on right now. All this while there are countries struggling to obtain them.

Know why many of these ‘studies’ are coming out of developing countries like Bangladesh and Egypt? It’s because these countries aren’t receiving the vaccines they desperately need and have to resort to alternative (and possibly dangerous) treatments.

Meanwhile we have people in the developed world delving into livestock dewormer.

/rant over.

 

[Vavrik]

What do you mean by this? I think you misunderstood me, I'm just saying that the more options the doctor has the better. I'm sure the Docs qualified to decide if the meds are right or wrong for their patient, a doctors knowledge goes without saying.

A doctor's knowledge does not go without saying. As with any profession, there are good practitioners and not so good practitioners.
In your case, paraphrasing here, your doctor explained a treatment that was not FDA approved, because he thought it might do you some good. But he explained the situation to you , and you agreed. If he had not done that and had been wrong, you might have had grounds to sue for malpractice. As it is, he did due diligence.

The existence of a study for any treatment published on the NIH or any other source does not mean that the treatment works and is safe. It just means that a study was published. Until there is FDA approval, I would hope that any treatment or drug a patient receives is done with informed consent, just as yours was. That is what I mean.

 

[Jolly_Green_Giant]

A doctor's knowledge does not go without saying.

I was generalizing, it would be absurd to think every one of them is a good practitioner. Give me a bit of credit.

In your case, paraphrasing here, your doctor explained a treatment that was not FDA approved, because he thought it might do you some good. But he explained the situation to you , and you agreed. If he had not done that and had been wrong, you might have had grounds to sue for malpractice. As it is, he did due diligence.

Right.

The existence of a study for any treatment published on the NIH or any other source does not mean that the treatment works and is safe. It just means that a study was published.

Idk man that sounds pretty dismissive. I Think I understand what you're saying but I also think there's more to it. I don't know how doctors consume the most up to date literature, but I would assume these studies can't be useless to them. When talking about informed consent, when I have to change medications I'm given options. On more than one occasion some of the drugs we talked about were not FDA approved for what I needed them for, but they were FDA approved for other things. I ask questions, as you should, and I always ask as many as possible. They cite different studies when suggesting a non FDA approved medication. I would assume studies like the ones I've linked, from a major and well respected institution are studies that they consider. I admit, I could be way off but I do think the studies are of more significance than saying they just exist and thats that.

 

[Vavrik]

Idk man that sounds pretty dismissive.

I'm not trying to be dismissive, I'm trying not to write a book. The way studies work is complex.

I Think I understand what you're saying but I also think there's more to it.

Yes there is... I think you understand correctly.

I don't know how doctors consume the most up to date literature, but I would assume these studies can't be useless to them

Mostly, they don't read all the most up-to-date literature, it depends on their specializations, interests, what the patient is coming to them for, and a bunch of other stuff. The real skill here is knowing where to look, and how to explain things to the patient.

When talking about informed consent, when I have to change medications I'm given options. On more than one occasion some of the drugs we talked about were not FDA approved for what I needed them for, but they were FDA approved for other things. I ask questions, as you should, and I always ask as many as possible. They cite different studies when suggesting a non FDA approved medication. I would assume studies like the ones I've linked, from a major and well respected institution are studies that they consider. I admit, I could be way off but I do think the studies are of more significance than saying they just exist and thats that.

You're pretty much bang on, and it sounds to me like your doctor has your best interests in mind. He's doing research for you - maybe even getting advice from other doctors more specialized in your condition. Those are the traits I look for in a doctor too.

And studies don't just exist, they are written by real scientists and doctors who are trying to find solutions for different conditions and problems people have. But a lot of trials and studies exist, where we only see a few drugs and treatments in the end. Honestly, I'm more accustomed to the Pharmaceutical industry research, so more like the third example you had. (this one: REGN-COV2, a Neutralizing Antibody Cocktail, in Outpatients with Covid-19 - PubMed (nih.gov) ) than the first two. I worked for almost 25 years in the Pharma and pharmaceutical regulation industries, but as a computer scientist and not a research scientist. That's my wife's department.

 

[Vavrik]

I just read an article that referenced this: (and it is provisional... not final)

Provisional Mortality Data — United States, 2020

The age-adjusted death rate increased by 15.9% in 2020. Overall death

www.cdc.gov

COVID is ranked in the third spot. We kind of knew it was going to end up there.
Note that influenza and pneumonia, which is what many people still compare COVID to, is listed as the 9th cause of death in the US in 2020. (i.e. not even close)
Also note that the life expectancy of Americans for 2020 compares with 1942-43 due to an increase in the total deaths. Most of this can be explained by overwhelmed health care systems. If it takes longer to deal with a heart attack or stroke or whatnot because the medical staff is already exhausted, what can you do?

 

[Jolly_Green_Giant]

I'm not trying to be dismissive, I'm trying not to write a book. The way studies work is complex.


Yes there is... I think you understand correctly.


Mostly, they don't read all the most up-to-date literature, it depends on their specializations, interests, what the patient is coming to them for, and a bunch of other stuff. The real skill here is knowing where to look, and how to explain things to the patient.


You're pretty much bang on, and it sounds to me like your doctor has your best interests in mind. He's doing research for you - maybe even getting advice from other doctors more specialized in your condition. Those are the traits I look for in a doctor too.

And studies don't just exist, they are written by real scientists and doctors who are trying to find solutions for different conditions and problems people have. But a lot of trials and studies exist, where we only see a few drugs and treatments in the end. Honestly, I'm more accustomed to the Pharmaceutical industry research, so more like the third example you had. (this one: REGN-COV2, a Neutralizing Antibody Cocktail, in Outpatients with Covid-19 - PubMed (nih.gov) ) than the first two. I worked for almost 25 years in the Pharma and pharmaceutical regulation industries, but as a computer scientist and not a research scientist. That's my wife's department.

We agree on all of this, and I respect your experience. One of the points I was trying to make with my recent posts is that theres more to these medications beyond the rage bait articles. I havent been paying attention to the news for the last few months, only peoples discussions on discord / reddit / my irl social circles. People are absolutely dehumanizing others over this and other things and it pisses me off.

This doesn't necessarily apply to you all, but I see people sitting behind a keyboard sanctimoniously laughing at the misfortune of others or wishing people would die. Wont get the vaccine? They should be killed before they kill others. Going to large events and not wearing masks? Well if they dont care about anyone elses life why should we care about theirs? Oh, youre taking horse medicine? You and your doctor must be fucking idiots. LOL karma comes around doesn't it boys, sucks he died, shouldn't have been a fucking idiot, good riddance.

If you've ever heard about moral licensing you can see on reddit what im talking about. "I'm a good person and have done good things so its okay for me to be vile towards other people because theyre bad and I'm not". Completely paraphrasing things obviously, but I hope you get my point.

 

[Montoya]

but I see people sitting behind a keyboard sanctimoniously laughing at the misfortune of others or wishing people would die.

When people were dying before the vaccine came out, I felt terrible for them and their families.

But now, if you live in the States and can walk into a Walgreens and get your FREE shot, but you choose not too because you would rather post on facebook about 5G, microchips and owning the scared libs by coughing at them... then I will indeed laugh at your misfortune because you are an idiot.

 

[Jolly_Green_Giant]

When people were dying before the vaccine came out, I felt terrible for them and their families.

But now, if you live in the States and can walk into a Walgreens and get your FREE shot, but you choose not too because you would rather post on facebook about 5G, microchips and owning the scared libs by coughing at them... then I will indeed laugh at your misfortune because you are an idiot.

We can all look at those who are able to get the shot but dont, medical issues exempt, and see there's a lack of logic on their part. If they're on facebook ranting like a lunatic, no one needs to tell you that theyre stupid, its just a given. I'll admit, during this whole thing I said ultimately it would be society that needs to establish these new social norms, not the government, I just don't like how far some people are taking it. The emotion I'm seeing often expressed is disgust. I understand why, but it still doesn't mean the feeling of disgust isn't dangerous, dehumanizing and ultimately in my opinion unnecessary (but not unwarranted). I can see both sides of the aisle, and have had the same feelings of disgust myself, but If i were to express those feelings what would be the point? It just evokes anger and hatred and I try to avoid that as much as possible. To sum it up, I'm just concerned about where people are placing their emotions. Maybe I'm on a sanctimonious high horse, I just feel like something isnt right.