- Joined
- May 7, 2014
- Messages
- 14,660
- Reaction Score
- 30,837
Your shoulder actuallyCough into your damn elbows you sick mofos
Your shoulder actuallyCough into your damn elbows you sick mofos
I thought that this was interesting:
Fauci offers more conservative death rate in academic article than in public virus briefings
You’ve probably heard that COVID-19 is far deadlier than the flu. But it could turn out to be more akin to a severe flu season. Surprisingly, both of those assessments come from the same authority at the same time: Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation's chief infectious disease specialist.
Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, has repeatedly cited more jarring figures in public. For instance, Fauci declared in March 11 congressional testimony that the current coronavirus “is 10 times more lethal than the seasonal flu,” which would be about 1 percent. His testimony generated news headlines that blared across the internet and television news, and it remains frequently cited today.
But among his learned colleagues in academia, he has provided the more conservative analysis.
“[T]he case fatality rate may be considerably less than 1%,” Fauci wrote in an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine on March 26. “This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of COVID-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively.”
LOL it’s not even a controlled study. The guy is describing his anecdotal experience with no comparison group. Both of them making some pretty hyperbolic claims that go completely against well documented clinical course data from all over. Symptoms going away in a few hours after starting treatment is just pure rubbish
Can’t assess statistical significance if there’s no two groups to compare possible treatment effects.
not saying they won’t turn out to be useful, but this is not the way we determine effectiveness.
You have to take information with a grain of phlegm. Coughing is fluid.This is what’s really pissing me off about how this disease is being managed. First it was a droplet disease. Then it was briefly considered an airborne disease that is “aerosolized”. Then it was back to droplet for a while but stay 6 feet away because small droplets can travel in a cough/sneeze. Now it’s airborne again??
Is coughing/sneezing the only way? Other than those who speak with spittle, can breathing on someone transmit it? Asking because 'airborne' is not necessarily flying particles of droplets, I assume its got to be lighter than that.Cough into your damn elbows you sick mofos
If it can survive in the open air for hours, I have to figure it’d be classified as “airborne”. And thus, yes, only an N95 is 100% effective at preventing transmission. But we do know there is a droplet component, with the studies they’ve done regarding length of survival on different surfacesIs coughing/sneezing the only way? Other than those who speak with spittle, can breathing on someone transmit it? Asking because 'airborne' is not necessarily flying particles of droplets, I assume its got to be lighter than that.
Ships are the *worst* place to be in a situation like this.I know ex-Navy who is still very much getting all updates. There are 200+ confirmed cases on the USS Roosevelt. A former chief of hers has died at 42. There are multiple 20 year olds on ventilators at the naval hospital.
And the navy is forcing them to stay aboard for 90 days. That length of time with the opposite of “social distancing” going on will cause an abject nightmare.Ships are the *worst* place to be in a situation like this.
Submarines being the worst of the worst.Ships are the *worst* place to be in a situation like this.
I know ex-Navy who is still very much getting all updates. There are 200+ confirmed cases on the USS Roosevelt. A former chief of hers has died at 42. There are multiple 20 year olds on ventilators at the naval hospital.
Ships are the *worst* place to be in a situation like this.
You decide:Is coughing/sneezing the only way? Other than those who speak with spittle, can breathing on someone transmit it? Asking because 'airborne' is not necessarily flying particles of droplets, I assume its got to be lighter than that.
Coronavirus does spread through the air and lingers in rooms long after patients have left, study findsIs coughing/sneezing the only way? Other than those who speak with spittle, can breathing on someone transmit it? Asking because 'airborne' is not necessarily flying particles of droplets, I assume its got to be lighter than that.
This is what’s really pissing me off about how this disease is being managed. First it was a droplet disease. Then it was briefly considered an airborne disease that is “aerosolized”. Then it was back to droplet for a while but stay 6 feet away because small droplets can travel in a cough/sneeze. Now it’s airborne again??
Thx for the info...question from a non medical person.I stopped listening to the NY doctor's interview after he stated there was 100 percent improvement in the French study. The French presenters claimed it was not a study but a clinical trial. I read that paper. Here is the link:
Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19: results of an open-label non-randomized clinical trial
The good news: after five days of receiving hydorxychloroquine 13/20 (65%) were nasopharyngeal negative compared to 3/16 (18.8%) in the control group.
THE BAD NEWS: THERE WERE FOUR PATIENTS ORIGINALLY IN THE GROUP GIVEN MEDICATION. TREATMENT WHO WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE FINAL RESULTS. THREE WERE REMOVED FROM THE TRIAL'S RESULTS BECAUSE THEY WERE TRANSFERRED TO AN INTENSIVE CARE UNIT. A FOURTH DIED ON DAY 3 POST INCLUSION BUT WAS PCR NEGATIVE ON DAY 2. There is no information to know if they received only hydorxychloroquine or the combination of medications. To be fair the group receiving medication had a higher percentage of patients with LRTI than the control group. The URTI rate was statistically insignificant between the two groups.
The Really bad news: A patient who was given both medications and was tested negative at day 6 was tested positive with a low titer on day 8. WHY IS THIS REALLY BAD. TWO BRITISH SCIENTISTS THEORIZE THAT HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE RAISES INTRACELLULAR PH (MAKES IT MORE ALKALINE) AND THIS KEEPS THE VIRUS IN A CAPSULE PREVENTING IT FROM GETTING INTO CELLULAR DNA AND SUBVERTING OUR CELLS MACHINERY. MY CONCERN (FULL DISCLOSER: HAVEN'T SEEN ANY OTHER PEOPLE CONCERNED) IS WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THESE POSTULATED INTRACELLULAR ENCAPSULATED VIRUSES WHEN HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE MEDS ARE STOPPED.
China had a small number of people who were tested negative after recovering but later tested positive. The assumption was the post testing was inaccurate. I'm wondering if these were the patients that were given the medicines by the Chinese researchers who put out the original paper which the French ran with.
I'm making a leap based on the statements of two British researchers. They postulate that there might be two modalities in which the med works.Thx for the info...question from a non medical person.
Wouldn't extending the chloraquine longer give the body's immune system more time to continue to build antibodies? why the rush to stop the chloraquine? thought it was used as a malaria preventative....meaning it's safe to take for an extended period of time
I'm making a leap based on the statements of two British researchers. They postulate that there might be two modalities in which the med works.
The first postulation is that the med might be binding to a sugar molecule on the cell membrane which is the binding site of the virus. That keeps the virus from binding and infecting. Here is a link to how our bodies defend against a virus. Immune Defenses It's amazing how many defenses we have to keep us healthy.
Most likely the body probably will react to the free floating virus and begin making antibodies. The question is whether cell destruction by the virus would elicit a better immune response and with it a longer immunity. I'm sure that will be debated. There is evidence that an over active immune response might be a major contributor to why some people are becoming severely ill. Several studies are underway to find medications to lesson the over reaction.
My concern is the second modality. After binding with the membrane the virus is encapsulated as it passes through and enters the cell. The British researchers postulate hydroxychloroquine elevates the ph of the cell fluid preventing the virus from exiting the capsule preventing it from taking over the cells DNA. That seems good but the virus is still in the cell not getting destroyed.
If this is the case, and that's a big if, the cells are keeping the body from developing an immune response by sequestering them (talk about ironies). When the medication is discontinued the ph will return to normal resulting in the virus taking over the cell. They cause the cell's machinery to make large numbers of them. They then rupture the cell releasing themselves to infect adjacent cells. When enough cells get destroyed and a person sneezes, coughs or talks the virus is release into the environment.
If I'm correct (and I hope I'm not) giving this medicine to infected people will incubate the virus during the entire time the patient is on the medicine (because of this sequestering). Once those individuals get off the medication they become infectious to others. These drugs have some toxicity so we won't want to keep people on the meds indefinitely. And given that no one is discussing the possibility I'm describing I'm concerned we are creating a large group of infectious people who will reinfect us just as the pandemic appears to be getting under control.
The whole thing is incredibly frustrating. Each piece of information seems to contradict the information before it. Tomorrow we’ll find out it is also spread through food.This is what’s really pissing me off about how this disease is being managed. First it was a droplet disease. Then it was briefly considered an airborne disease that is “aerosolized”. Then it was back to droplet for a while but stay 6 feet away because small droplets can travel in a cough/sneeze. Now it’s airborne again??
Sounds like some pretty good bud.Pretty much supports my current strategy of remaining on the floor in fetal position paralyzed with fear.
I've tried to be very conscious of keeping my distance when I go out and walk for exercise. I live about a ten minute walk from a large university, and with the kids being away, its an excellent site for a low traffic walk. So I was walking around the athletic fields, and there was a guy standing around about 80 yards from me. Good right?
Well I could instantly tell he was smoking a joint from 80 yards away, so that means that smoke which had been in his lungs, was entering mine. And that's 80 yards! Got me thinking about what really would be a safe distance if someone were to sneeze?
Theory one: bad guys try to get into a house but can't because all the entry ways (sugar molecules on cell membranes) have guards (hydroxychloriquine). Meanwhile cops (immune cells) are patrolling the area, see the bad guys, cuff them (bind to them) and dump them to, using British history, Australia (remove them from body through our feces or urine). All the bad guys are identical to one another. The cops leave drones in the area that have facial recognition of only those bad guys so when they reappear (as opposed to other bad guys or other viruses) they are targeted well before they get to the entry ways (immunity).I'm pretty sure I thank you for that. But could you distill it a fraction for those of us not medically inclined? (I'm just an engineerd and finance guy. My medical knowledge comes from House - EVERY condition requires a lumbar puncture.)