The Covid-19 serious chat thread

[RDW]

First topic message reminder :

A thread set up to house the more serious chat relating to the global pandemic.

Nothing has changed in what we expect from discussions on here though:

- Please treat each other with respect
- Avoid hyperbole and fake news
- This thread shouldn't be used for a political soapbox, but political discussion will likely happen. See point 1!

A reminder that we have a community thread here for people to vent, look for help and all round support each other. https://www.606v2.com/t69506-the-covid-19-community-thread#3896653

[tigertattie]

I don’t think there’s a right or wrong answer. There’s definitely differing opinions.

I just hope the medical profession are keeping an open and objective view on things and aren’t saying no to any possible solution

In regards to opening up again, we’ve got the benefit of looking at the US as an example with Trump getting ready to re-open things. If they reopen and infections go flying up, guess what the UK will stick to.

[rodders]

Out of interest where are these places administering Hydroxychloroquine with low mortality rates?

Research it is quite easy to find.

What I have seen is very mixed about it, and the side effects for some people are not at all good. Rumors that Trump invested in a company making the drug does not help.

It is being widely tested across the world. A simple search brings up articles such as this

https://www.ibtimes.sg/coronavirus-swedish-hospitals-stop-chloroquine-trials-patients-complain-dangerous-side-effects-42679

It is primarily a treatment for malaria but also an important drug for people suffering from Lupus.

Yes you are right but these aren't normal times, nothing we are doing is based on widespread clinical trials as there isn't time. So this is not Science v pseudo science. Ventilator success rate is lower the 40%, if what we accept current approach as a real time experiment it is not working.

The official line from the NHS is there is no treatment for this. It simply is not true, there are treatments available if people get them early that could be very effective (High dose O2, Vit C, chloroquine), they just aren't available to the majority in time to be effective.

[Crimey]

I find it so hard to believe that with the entire world focused on this, that something like that has gone unnoticed by the mainstream medical community. I think it's wishful thinking, as it would provide us with a quick way out.

It hasn't gone unnoticed at all. Only if your source of information is the BBC and UK goverment. It is everywhere.

The article you posted is talking about blood transfusions and even notes that this is was used to treat SARS also. It's essentially a quick version of a vaccine by transferring antibodies that know how to fight the virus directly into people, rather than injecting weak or dead versions of the virus as a vaccine would be and allowing the body to build antibodies naturally. Not sure that proves anything about us treating the wrong disease or the malaria drug.

In addition, the higher mortality rates can be explained by the fact that those with mild symptoms aren't being tested in countries where self-isolation is first treatment. The UK is only really testing people when it get serious which increases the mortality rate, countries were testing is being done earlier is picking up those with mild symptoms and therefore lowering mortality rates. 

I think data analysis based on media reported numbers is basically pointless right now. Number of infected people is a completely useless number as it's completely reliant on how much testing is done, who it's done on and when it's done. Even dead is not a great measure as it depends who qualifies as dead from Covid-19 - if I have heart attack and I have Covid-19, did Covid kill me or did heart disease? Also seems to not be included people dying at home or in care homes.

I just think it seems unrealistic that, given the focus on this disease, that we could go months on and still be treating the wrong disease.

[Soul Requiem]

I've not seen anything that says that Australia are currently using Hydroxychloroquine, their health authorities are advising against it's use not for its use. There are trials being undertaken in Australia but thus far that is it.

Germany it has to be said have been lucky, the average age of confirmed cases there is 49 compared to over 60 in both Spain and Italy. You're also comparing countries with vastly different testing capabilities, you test more and the death rate reduces, that is pretty basic stuff.

Personally find it dangerous when internet rumours start to gather pace despite medical experts all the world over advising against it.

[rodders]

I don’t think there’s a right or wrong answer. There’s definitely differing opinions.

I just hope the medical profession are keeping an open and objective view on things and aren’t saying no to any possible solution

In regards to opening up again, we’ve got the benefit of looking at the US as an example with Trump getting ready to re-open things. If they reopen and infections go flying up, guess what the UK will stick to.  

I agree but it's obvious to me which theory fits the observable evidence and it isn't the accepted one.

I think for front-line staff they are in the eye of the storm, it's difficult to see the wood from the trees and they are following protocol to keep people alive.

Another issue which exasperates is we have a lot of redeployed staff working the ICU and ventilators, if something was amiss they wouldn't be in a position to pick on it.

Too many policy makers are blinded by their own assumptions I fear, 6 weeks ago they were modelling influenza pandemic strategies, the tendency is to fit with what they see with what they understand - but if it is something completely new there is a danger they get things very wrong - my opinion is that is what is happening.

[navyblueshorts]

Channel 4 did an interesting program tonight.

On it there was a lady who was hospitalised after showing symptoms for two weeks and her oxygen levels dropped to 60%. They were looking at anaesthetising her to  mechanically ventilate but luckily she started getting back up and now she’s on a 28% oxygen mix and is on her way to getting back to regular 21% oxygen which is the air we breathe.

She didn’t have pneumonia so it is possible that the virus is stopping blood from oxygenating. Hopefully we’re starting to understand this virus now which will help in its treatment. The scary thing about the virus was how little we knew about it.

If it is the blood that’s the issue then transfusions could be a way forward. So don’t  forget to give blood folks, it’s important to do this anyway even if transfusion isn’t a viable treatment as we always need blood stocks.

Please listen to the science, and not rumour.

Channel 4 did an interesting program tonight.

On it there was a lady who was hospitalised after showing symptoms for two weeks and her oxygen levels dropped to 60%. They were looking at anaesthetising her to  mechanically ventilate but luckily she started getting back up and now she’s on a 28% oxygen mix and is on her way to getting back to regular 21% oxygen which is the air we breathe.

She didn’t have pneumonia so it is possible that the virus is stopping blood from oxygenating. Hopefully we’re starting to understand this virus now which will help in its treatment. The scary thing about the virus was how little we knew about it.

If it is the blood that’s the issue then transfusions could be a way forward. So don’t  forget to give blood folks, it’s important to do this anyway even if transfusion isn’t a viable treatment as we always need blood stocks.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-52299404

Yes it looks like the penny is dropping but why has it taken so long to see we are going down the wrong road?  

Places that are identifying cases early via testing and administering hydroxychloroquine are having very low mortality rates. Would they give Tom Hanks and his wife a drug that didn't work? I don't think so.

If we accept this is new understanding of what this virus is doing, then the way the NHS are handling this is completely wrong, by being advised to self isolating for 7-8 days many people could be too sick to help by the time they seek treatment. The exact same phenomena was saw in Italy, where even young/healthy patients had <50% survival rates and were incredibly ill on arrival.

This also begs the question, is this virus even a SARS like disease at all, as in if it is not a typical respiratory illness causing risk of ARDS, rather a blood parasite - do we need to look at this all again and question how this is actually transmitting, it's origin, everything?

Look at the at risk groups again - ask why would pregnant woman be at high risk of pneumonia and young Children not at risk? If you consider the disease as a pneumonia causing virus that makes no sense at all.

But if you consider it is actually somehow hijacking hemoglobin then it makes perfect sense that groups with reduced ability to produce new hemoglobin, or already are depleted due to underlying condition, are going to be far more severely impacted.

Thankfully questions are being asked and some indications protocols are changing - https://twitter.com/cameronks - but when this is over we need a public inquiry to what the hell has gone on.    

Your Wales link re. blood is nothing to do w/ oxygenation - it's to do w/ supplying anti-SARS2 antibodies from the blood plasma (no red cells there, so no haem!) of those that have recovered from Covid-19 to provide some immunity to those fighting it.
The 'paper' this is 'oxygenation' rumour is based on is scheisse; utter scheisse. It's hypothesis (at best) and claims it 'attacks' heme and 'captures' the porphyrin cofactor. It isn't even a lab study and fails to even address why the SARS2 virus's route into cells (ACE2 receptor) isn't even expressed on erythrocytes (red blood cells). It's nonsense.

[navyblueshorts]

Out of interest where are these places administering Hydroxychloroquine with low mortality rates?

Research it is quite easy to find.

This is nonsense! There's no validated evidence that hydroxychloroquine is significantly beneficial for SARS2.

[navyblueshorts]

Out of interest where are these places administering Hydroxychloroquine with low mortality rates?

Research it is quite easy to find.

What I have seen is very mixed about it, and the side effects for some people are not at all good. Rumors that Trump invested in a company making the drug does not help.

It is being widely tested across the world. A simple search brings up articles such as this

https://www.ibtimes.sg/coronavirus-swedish-hospitals-stop-chloroquine-trials-patients-complain-dangerous-side-effects-42679

It is primarily a treatment for malaria but also an important drug for people suffering from Lupus.

Yes you are right but these aren't normal times, nothing we are doing is based on widespread clinical trials as there isn't time. So this is not Science v pseudo science. Ventilator success rate is lower the 40%, if what we accept current approach as a real time experiment it is not working.

The official line from the NHS is there is no treatment for this. It simply is not true, there are treatments available if people get them early that could be very effective (High dose O2, Vit C, chloroquine), they just aren't available to the majority in time to be effective.

Words fail me...

[123456789.]

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/15/health/new-french-study-hydroxychloroquine/index.html

There’s a French study that says it doesn’t work and might even make things worse.

[navyblueshorts]

I don’t think there’s a right or wrong answer. There’s definitely differing opinions.

I just hope the medical profession are keeping an open and objective view on things and aren’t saying no to any possible solution

In regards to opening up again, we’ve got the benefit of looking at the US as an example with Trump getting ready to re-open things. If they reopen and infections go flying up, guess what the UK will stick to.  

I agree but it's obvious to me which theory fits the observable evidence and it isn't the accepted one.

I think for front-line staff they are in the eye of the storm, it's difficult to see the wood from the trees and they are following protocol to keep people alive.

Another issue which exasperates is we have a lot of redeployed staff working the ICU and ventilators, if something was amiss they wouldn't be in a position to pick on it.

Too many policy makers are blinded by their own assumptions I fear, 6 weeks ago they were modelling influenza pandemic strategies, the tendency is to fit with what they see with what they understand - but if it is something completely new there is a danger they get things very wrong - my opinion is that is what is happening.
   

With respect, you're wrong. In addition loads of 'theories' turn out to be bunkum - can I hear you say MMR/autism?

FWIW, I'm a post-doctoral Biochemist of more than 35 years standing; the basis for this story isn't tenable. What you are describing is completely unfounded and has more holes in it that Swiss cheese. There's plenty to learn about this virus, but I seriously doubt any of this is worth more than for use as toilet paper in the future. We'll see.

[navyblueshorts]

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/15/health/new-french-study-hydroxychloroquine/index.html

There’s a French study that says it doesn’t work and might even make things worse.

Yeah. It's clutching at straws, but worth a punt as a look-see. What HCQ (and CQ) does, amongst other things, is interfere w/ viral entry into cells and release, once inside. That's almost certainly why it's primarily being trialled - not for some dubious rumour relating to active destruction of haemoglobin.

[Pr4wn]

I don’t think there’s a right or wrong answer. There’s definitely differing opinions.

I just hope the medical profession are keeping an open and objective view on things and aren’t saying no to any possible solution

In regards to opening up again, we’ve got the benefit of looking at the US as an example with Trump getting ready to re-open things. If they reopen and infections go flying up, guess what the UK will stick to.  

I agree but it's obvious to me which theory fits the observable evidence and it isn't the accepted one.

I think for front-line staff they are in the eye of the storm, it's difficult to see the wood from the trees and they are following protocol to keep people alive.

Another issue which exasperates is we have a lot of redeployed staff working the ICU and ventilators, if something was amiss they wouldn't be in a position to pick on it.

Too many policy makers are blinded by their own assumptions I fear, 6 weeks ago they were modelling influenza pandemic strategies, the tendency is to fit with what they see with what they understand - but if it is something completely new there is a danger they get things very wrong - my opinion is that is what is happening.
   

With respect, you're wrong. In addition loads of 'theories' turn out to be bunkum - can I hear you say MMR/autism?

FWIW, I'm a post-doctoral Biochemist of more than 35 years standing; the basis for this story isn't tenable. What you are describing is completely unfounded and has more holes in it that Swiss cheese. There's plenty to learn about this virus, but I seriously doubt any of this is worth more than for use as toilet paper in the future. We'll see.

Feel free, mate. Panic buying has emptied shelves everywhere.

[rodders]

I've not seen anything that says that Australia are currently using Hydroxychloroquine, their health authorities are advising against it's use not for its use. There are trials being undertaken in Australia but thus far that is it.

Germany it has to be said have been lucky, the average age of confirmed cases there is 49 compared to over 60 in both Spain and Italy. You're also comparing countries with vastly different testing capabilities, you test more and the death rate reduces, that is pretty basic stuff.

Personally find it dangerous when internet rumours start to gather pace despite medical experts all the world over advising against it.

In Australia they are advising against it's use to limit supplies. A couple of days ago they were advising against use of masks, things change and do so quickly - these are far from internet rumours.

[Soul Requiem]

I've not seen anything that says that Australia are currently using Hydroxychloroquine, their health authorities are advising against it's use not for its use. There are trials being undertaken in Australia but thus far that is it.

Germany it has to be said have been lucky, the average age of confirmed cases there is 49 compared to over 60 in both Spain and Italy. You're also comparing countries with vastly different testing capabilities, you test more and the death rate reduces, that is pretty basic stuff.

Personally find it dangerous when internet rumours start to gather pace despite medical experts all the world over advising against it.

In Australia they are advising against it's use to limit supplies. A couple of days ago they were advising against use of masks, things change and do so quickly - these are far from internet rumours.

They're not even using it to treat patients so how can they be limiting supplies, it's in two separate trials nothing more at the moment. Of course it's just an internet rumour, i'll stick to the experts thanks.

[rodders]

I don’t think there’s a right or wrong answer. There’s definitely differing opinions.

I just hope the medical profession are keeping an open and objective view on things and aren’t saying no to any possible solution

In regards to opening up again, we’ve got the benefit of looking at the US as an example with Trump getting ready to re-open things. If they reopen and infections go flying up, guess what the UK will stick to.  

I agree but it's obvious to me which theory fits the observable evidence and it isn't the accepted one.

I think for front-line staff they are in the eye of the storm, it's difficult to see the wood from the trees and they are following protocol to keep people alive.

Another issue which exasperates is we have a lot of redeployed staff working the ICU and ventilators, if something was amiss they wouldn't be in a position to pick on it.

Too many policy makers are blinded by their own assumptions I fear, 6 weeks ago they were modelling influenza pandemic strategies, the tendency is to fit with what they see with what they understand - but if it is something completely new there is a danger they get things very wrong - my opinion is that is what is happening.
   

With respect, you're wrong. In addition loads of 'theories' turn out to be bunkum - can I hear you say MMR/autism?

FWIW, I'm a post-doctoral Biochemist of more than 35 years standing; the basis for this story isn't tenable. What you are describing is completely unfounded and has more holes in it that Swiss cheese. There's plenty to learn about this virus, but I seriously doubt any of this is worth more than for use as toilet paper in the future. We'll see.

So which aspects don't fit, genuine question?

I can only speak from anecdotal experience of having the virus and I firmly believe the theory that this is hijacking haemoglobin rather than impairing the lungs - perhaps it is doing both but treating the former will turn out to be very key to solving this.

[rodders]

I've not seen anything that says that Australia are currently using Hydroxychloroquine, their health authorities are advising against it's use not for its use. There are trials being undertaken in Australia but thus far that is it.

Germany it has to be said have been lucky, the average age of confirmed cases there is 49 compared to over 60 in both Spain and Italy. You're also comparing countries with vastly different testing capabilities, you test more and the death rate reduces, that is pretty basic stuff.

Personally find it dangerous when internet rumours start to gather pace despite medical experts all the world over advising against it.

In Australia they are advising against it's use to limit supplies. A couple of days ago they were advising against use of masks, things change and do so quickly - these are far from internet rumours.

They're not even using it to treat patients so how can they be limiting supplies, it's in two separate trials nothing more at the moment. Of course it's just an internet rumour, i'll stick to the experts thanks.

So then in you opinion did they dupe Rita Wilson into an experimental trial, or is she just spreading internet rumors?

https://nypost.com/2020/04/14/chloroquine-gave-rita-wilson-tom-hanks-extreme-side-effects/

[rodders]

Just to clarify, I can't say if chloroquine works or not, the point I'm getting at is we need to rapidly shift our perception of what this disease is and what it is doing, otherwise we won't get out of this.

Current interventions are failing and I believe in those suggesting we have misdiagnosed and misunderstood what this disease is doing.

[No name Bertie]

... The editor of the lancet has called it “a crime against humanity … Every scientist, every health worker, every citizen must resist and rebel against this appalling betrayal of global solidarity"

The editor of the Lancet announced I think some time last year in an editorial the intention to turn the Lancet into a political vehicle as well as for publishing clinical medical research.  

More and more editors of academic journals are announcing their intention to change society / have a measurable impact on politics.  This includes the articles they are willing to publish which includes an analysis of the authors for things like female and BAME representation. 

Many are calling this a good thing, while a minority say this is a bad thing.

I think it's probably reasonable of me to ask you for a citation re. claim of Lancet acting as a political vehicle, please.

While I'm not saying The Lancet isn't right in calling out Trump here, worth, perhaps, remembering that its Editor was in post when Wakefield's nonsense MMR/Autism paper was published and his behaviour afterwards.

I was responding to and adding to Pr4wn's comment.  I am not here to persuade anyone out of their own opinion or belief.  That is a fools errand for the internet.  Basically you have to decide whether the quote from the "editor of the lancet" was a political statement or not a political statement and whether that is the type of thing academic journals should be getting involved in.  

The problem is once someone politicizes an issue then people end up talking about politics rather than the "science" and the practicalities that follow from that.  

I have seen endless threads that begin with something and then someone throws in "but what about Donald Trump" and then the thread goes to pot.

You said:

...The editor of the Lancet announced I think some time last year in an editorial the intention to turn the Lancet into a political vehicle as well as for publishing clinical medical research...

Given the import of that, I asked you to point me to the quote so that I can see that he actually said, what you claim he said. You choose to obfuscate. Up to you.

Your response proves the correctness of my response.

Never mind; you clearly don't have the evidence to support your bias.

And what bias might you imagine I have?

[rodders]

I've not seen anything that says that Australia are currently using Hydroxychloroquine, their health authorities are advising against it's use not for its use. There are trials being undertaken in Australia but thus far that is it.

Germany it has to be said have been lucky, the average age of confirmed cases there is 49 compared to over 60 in both Spain and Italy. You're also comparing countries with vastly different testing capabilities, you test more and the death rate reduces, that is pretty basic stuff.

Personally find it dangerous when internet rumours start to gather pace despite medical experts all the world over advising against it.

In Australia they are advising against it's use to limit supplies. A couple of days ago they were advising against use of masks, things change and do so quickly - these are far from internet rumours.

They're not even using it to treat patients so how can they be limiting supplies, it's in two separate trials nothing more at the moment. Of course it's just an internet rumour, i'll stick to the experts thanks.

Sure thing and can you point me to the experts on Covid 19?

Would that be Professor Whitty, Neil Ferguson, WHO, my GP or Bill Gates? Boris has had it so maybe he's the expert. It's not the WHO because according to Donald and some folks on the net their involved with China in an elaborate cover up.

Maybe I missed site containing the scientific consensus, could you link it?

The biggest issue so far is the lack of scrutiny, investigative journalism around the absolute drivel we are being told by "experts".

Unfortunately fake news is an issue because there are genuinely knowledgeable people out there (not me) asking very important questions.

I absolutely know that the claims around hemaglobin are very far from being studied or proved but in my opinion, time will prove them closer to accurate than the current official gumph.

https://chemrxiv.org/articles/Flawed_methods_in_COVID-19_Attacks_the_1-Beta_Chain_of_Hemoglobin_and_Captures_the_Porphyrin_to_Inhibit_Human_Heme_Metabolism_/12120912

[123456789.]

I really don't think there's any conspiracy or blunder here. This is a new disease that first emerged in November 2019 at the latest. The average drug production time is ten years. It's hardly surprising we don't have an effective treatment for it. The vast majority of the World's pharmaceutical companies are doing some work on this. The top scientific minds in the world are working on this. The overwhelming balance of probability is toward them being on the right track but early in the process. It's a uniquely scary thing for us as a society when science has formed some answers to most of the problems we already have.

[rodders]

I really don't think there's any conspiracy or blunder here. This is a new disease that first emerged in November 2019 at the latest. The average drug production time is ten years. It's hardly surprising we don't have an effective treatment for it. The vast majority of the World's pharmaceutical companies are doing some work on this. The top scientific minds in the world are working on this. The overwhelming balance of probability is toward them being on the right track but early in the process. It's a uniquely scary thing for us as a society when science has formed some answers to most of the problems we already have.

Me neither. I think at each stage we've modeled and developed interventions to contain and treat this based on best fit models of known diseases.

I just believe as new information is emerging and the current theories are struggling to understand big questions (why some are getting so ill and even dying and others appear to be asymptomatic).

We are all learning as we go, that is why the suggestion there are experts on this is very dangerous. If we dismiss every conflicting view to the current dogma as quack rumors we are in trouble because there are no existing accepted solutions or treatments out there.

[lostinwales]

We like patterns and solutions. Doctors will try treatments so that they are doing something rather than sitting and waiting. There are reasons why HCQ might help or might not, but then people recover while on it and it is suddenly the reason why they do.

In the meantime those that can buy up supplies of the drug 'just in case' and those who actually need it to manage existing conditions can't get hold of it.

[navyblueshorts]

I don’t think there’s a right or wrong answer. There’s definitely differing opinions.

I just hope the medical profession are keeping an open and objective view on things and aren’t saying no to any possible solution

In regards to opening up again, we’ve got the benefit of looking at the US as an example with Trump getting ready to re-open things. If they reopen and infections go flying up, guess what the UK will stick to.  

I agree but it's obvious to me which theory fits the observable evidence and it isn't the accepted one.

I think for front-line staff they are in the eye of the storm, it's difficult to see the wood from the trees and they are following protocol to keep people alive.

Another issue which exasperates is we have a lot of redeployed staff working the ICU and ventilators, if something was amiss they wouldn't be in a position to pick on it.

Too many policy makers are blinded by their own assumptions I fear, 6 weeks ago they were modelling influenza pandemic strategies, the tendency is to fit with what they see with what they understand - but if it is something completely new there is a danger they get things very wrong - my opinion is that is what is happening.
   

With respect, you're wrong. In addition loads of 'theories' turn out to be bunkum - can I hear you say MMR/autism?

FWIW, I'm a post-doctoral Biochemist of more than 35 years standing; the basis for this story isn't tenable. What you are describing is completely unfounded and has more holes in it that Swiss cheese. There's plenty to learn about this virus, but I seriously doubt any of this is worth more than for use as toilet paper in the future. We'll see.

So which aspects don't fit, genuine question?

I can only speak from anecdotal experience of having the virus and I firmly believe the theory that this is hijacking haemoglobin rather than impairing the lungs - perhaps it is doing both but treating the former will turn out to be very key to solving this.

I'm afraid I can't counter this sort of cultish belief in the internet rumour mill. I described, above, at least partly why the paper that this is based on is flawed, bigtime. You want to believe that this is true. Treating 'the former' won't be happening, because it's not based on anything that's, frankly, believable scientifically.

You believe what you want to believe, if it helps.

[navyblueshorts]

Just to clarify, I can't say if chloroquine works or not, the point I'm getting at is we need to rapidly shift our perception of what this disease is and what it is doing, otherwise we won't get out of this.

Current interventions are failing and I believe in those suggesting we have misdiagnosed and misunderstood what this disease is doing.

Nonsense, I'm afraid. Most of those hospitalised recover.

[navyblueshorts]

I've not seen anything that says that Australia are currently using Hydroxychloroquine, their health authorities are advising against it's use not for its use. There are trials being undertaken in Australia but thus far that is it.

Germany it has to be said have been lucky, the average age of confirmed cases there is 49 compared to over 60 in both Spain and Italy. You're also comparing countries with vastly different testing capabilities, you test more and the death rate reduces, that is pretty basic stuff.

Personally find it dangerous when internet rumours start to gather pace despite medical experts all the world over advising against it.

In Australia they are advising against it's use to limit supplies. A couple of days ago they were advising against use of masks, things change and do so quickly - these are far from internet rumours.

They're not even using it to treat patients so how can they be limiting supplies, it's in two separate trials nothing more at the moment. Of course it's just an internet rumour, i'll stick to the experts thanks.

Sure thing and can you point me to the experts on Covid 19?

Would that be Professor Whitty, Neil Ferguson, WHO, my GP or Bill Gates? Boris has had it so maybe he's the expert. It's not the WHO because according to Donald and some folks on the net their involved with China in an elaborate cover up.  

Maybe I missed site containing the scientific consensus, could you link it?

The biggest issue so far is the lack of scrutiny, investigative journalism around the absolute drivel we are being told by "experts".

Unfortunately fake news is an issue because there are genuinely knowledgeable people out there (not me) asking very important questions.

I absolutely know that the claims around hemaglobin are very far from being studied or proved but in my opinion, time will prove them closer to accurate than the current official gumph.  

https://chemrxiv.org/articles/Flawed_methods_in_COVID-19_Attacks_the_1-Beta_Chain_of_Hemoglobin_and_Captures_the_Porphyrin_to_Inhibit_Human_Heme_Metabolism_/12120912    

And, one more time: This.Paper.Is.Bollox. A decent undergrad biochemist would tear it apart in 5 minutes.

[rodders]

I've not seen anything that says that Australia are currently using Hydroxychloroquine, their health authorities are advising against it's use not for its use. There are trials being undertaken in Australia but thus far that is it.

Germany it has to be said have been lucky, the average age of confirmed cases there is 49 compared to over 60 in both Spain and Italy. You're also comparing countries with vastly different testing capabilities, you test more and the death rate reduces, that is pretty basic stuff.

Personally find it dangerous when internet rumours start to gather pace despite medical experts all the world over advising against it.

In Australia they are advising against it's use to limit supplies. A couple of days ago they were advising against use of masks, things change and do so quickly - these are far from internet rumours.

They're not even using it to treat patients so how can they be limiting supplies, it's in two separate trials nothing more at the moment. Of course it's just an internet rumour, i'll stick to the experts thanks.

Sure thing and can you point me to the experts on Covid 19?

Would that be Professor Whitty, Neil Ferguson, WHO, my GP or Bill Gates? Boris has had it so maybe he's the expert. It's not the WHO because according to Donald and some folks on the net their involved with China in an elaborate cover up.  

Maybe I missed site containing the scientific consensus, could you link it?

The biggest issue so far is the lack of scrutiny, investigative journalism around the absolute drivel we are being told by "experts".

Unfortunately fake news is an issue because there are genuinely knowledgeable people out there (not me) asking very important questions.

I absolutely know that the claims around hemaglobin are very far from being studied or proved but in my opinion, time will prove them closer to accurate than the current official gumph.  

https://chemrxiv.org/articles/Flawed_methods_in_COVID-19_Attacks_the_1-Beta_Chain_of_Hemoglobin_and_Captures_the_Porphyrin_to_Inhibit_Human_Heme_Metabolism_/12120912    

And, one more time: This.Paper.Is.Bollox. A decent undergrad biochemist would tear it apart in 5 minutes.

That paper, if you had read it, was the rebuttal.

I'm conceding it is an extremely flawed study, hence the link. But that doesn't mean it doesn't present some value or the original hypothesis has no merit.

[rodders]

Just to clarify, I can't say if chloroquine works or not, the point I'm getting at is we need to rapidly shift our perception of what this disease is and what it is doing, otherwise we won't get out of this.

Current interventions are failing and I believe in those suggesting we have misdiagnosed and misunderstood what this disease is doing.

Nonsense, I'm afraid. Most of those hospitalised recover.

Not in those requiring ventilation I'm afraid.

In China some stats are as bad as 97% mortality, in the UK 48% -66% depending on the technique used but there is a lack of published figures.

https://www.physiciansweekly.com/mortality-rate-of-covid-19-patients-on-ventilators/

I saw 38% mortality in Lombardy but I believe this ended up closer to 50% later on. Can't find the source.

[Soul Requiem]

Ventilators are a last resort so mortality rate is always high regardless of whether it's Covid-19 or not.

[navyblueshorts]

I've not seen anything that says that Australia are currently using Hydroxychloroquine, their health authorities are advising against it's use not for its use. There are trials being undertaken in Australia but thus far that is it.

Germany it has to be said have been lucky, the average age of confirmed cases there is 49 compared to over 60 in both Spain and Italy. You're also comparing countries with vastly different testing capabilities, you test more and the death rate reduces, that is pretty basic stuff.

Personally find it dangerous when internet rumours start to gather pace despite medical experts all the world over advising against it.

In Australia they are advising against it's use to limit supplies. A couple of days ago they were advising against use of masks, things change and do so quickly - these are far from internet rumours.

They're not even using it to treat patients so how can they be limiting supplies, it's in two separate trials nothing more at the moment. Of course it's just an internet rumour, i'll stick to the experts thanks.

Sure thing and can you point me to the experts on Covid 19?

Would that be Professor Whitty, Neil Ferguson, WHO, my GP or Bill Gates? Boris has had it so maybe he's the expert. It's not the WHO because according to Donald and some folks on the net their involved with China in an elaborate cover up.  

Maybe I missed site containing the scientific consensus, could you link it?

The biggest issue so far is the lack of scrutiny, investigative journalism around the absolute drivel we are being told by "experts".

Unfortunately fake news is an issue because there are genuinely knowledgeable people out there (not me) asking very important questions.

I absolutely know that the claims around hemaglobin are very far from being studied or proved but in my opinion, time will prove them closer to accurate than the current official gumph.  

https://chemrxiv.org/articles/Flawed_methods_in_COVID-19_Attacks_the_1-Beta_Chain_of_Hemoglobin_and_Captures_the_Porphyrin_to_Inhibit_Human_Heme_Metabolism_/12120912    

And, one more time: This.Paper.Is.Bollox. A decent undergrad biochemist would tear it apart in 5 minutes.

That paper, if you had read it, was the rebuttal.

I'm conceding it is an extremely flawed study, hence the link. But that doesn't mean it doesn't present some value or the original hypothesis has no merit.  

My apologies; saw the URL posted and missed the word 'flawed'.

There is 'value' in that people are looking at all sorts, but the original hypothesis here has, if not no merit, then very little. It's nothing more than a dodgy prediction, and that based on little. The modelling described can be used to 'predict' all sorts of molecular interactions, but it doesn't make them likely. The rebuttal you linked is damning.

[rodders]

Ventilators are a last resort so mortality rate is always high regardless of whether it's Covid-19 or not.

Actually not true, ventilation mortality with severe ARDS normally is around 30-35%, a lot better than seen with covid hence guidelines are being reviewed.

None of it is opinion or pseudoscience, it's all out there and I'll be back in a month to say I told you so.

[Soul Requiem]

35% mortality rate isn't high?

[navyblueshorts]

Just to clarify, I can't say if chloroquine works or not, the point I'm getting at is we need to rapidly shift our perception of what this disease is and what it is doing, otherwise we won't get out of this.

Current interventions are failing and I believe in those suggesting we have misdiagnosed and misunderstood what this disease is doing.

Nonsense, I'm afraid. Most of those hospitalised recover.

Not in those requiring ventilation I'm afraid.

In China some stats are as bad as 97% mortality, in the UK 48% -66% depending on the technique used but there is a lack of published figures.

https://www.physiciansweekly.com/mortality-rate-of-covid-19-patients-on-ventilators/

I saw 38% mortality in Lombardy but I believe this ended up closer to 50% later on. Can't find the source.  

You said 'interventions', so I included in that all 'interventions', including elevated oxygen, CPAP etc.

Given what we know re. age demographic and Covid severity, I'm not that surprised. As I mentioned before as well, if you have highly inflamed lower lung tissue and alveoli filled w/ fluid, ventilation on its own, even oscillating, isn't necessarily going to work. ECMO, maybe, I guess, but even that hasn't helped some.

[navyblueshorts]

Ventilators are a last resort so mortality rate is always high regardless of whether it's Covid-19 or not.

Actually not true, ventilation mortality with severe ARDS normally is around 30-35%, a lot better than seen with covid hence guidelines are being reviewed.

None of it is opinion or pseudoscience, it's all out there and I'll be back in a month to say I told you so.

See you then. What you'll be highly unlikely to be back to celebrate, though, is the fact that this is all down to SARS2 destroying haemoglobin.

Severe ARDS is, presumably, not so restricted to the elderly - comparing like-for-like?

[rodders]

35% mortality rate isn't high?

I'd take it over 97.

[Soul Requiem]

35% mortality rate isn't high?

I'd take it over 97.

I'd take it over a made up number too. In the UK the mortality rates are incredibly similar.

[rodders]

35% mortality rate isn't high?

I'd take it over 97.

I'd take it over a made up number too. In the UK the mortality rates are incredibly similar.

Source?

[rodders]

Ventilators are a last resort so mortality rate is always high regardless of whether it's Covid-19 or not.

Actually not true, ventilation mortality with severe ARDS normally is around 30-35%, a lot better than seen with covid hence guidelines are being reviewed.

None of it is opinion or pseudoscience, it's all out there and I'll be back in a month to say I told you so.

See you then. What you'll be highly unlikely to be back to celebrate, though, is the fact that this is all down to SARS2 destroying haemoglobin.

Severe ARDS is, presumably, not so restricted to the elderly - comparing like-for-like?

ARDs is mainly bacterial no? Surely mostly occurs in elderly and vulnerable?

[Soul Requiem]

35% mortality rate isn't high?

I'd take it over 97.

I'd take it over a made up number too. In the UK the mortality rates are incredibly similar.

Source?

https://www.physiciansweekly.com/mortality-rate-of-covid-19-patients-on-ventilators/

If we look at the UK, it's 46% with Covid-19 and 36% without it. Included in that 46% are people who would and could have been in the 36%. The Chinese numbers are pretty irrelevant as all their numbers regarding this pandemic are.

[rodders]

35% mortality rate isn't high?

I'd take it over 97.

I'd take it over a made up number too. In the UK the mortality rates are incredibly similar.

Source?

https://www.physiciansweekly.com/mortality-rate-of-covid-19-patients-on-ventilators/

If we look at the UK, it's 46% with Covid-19 and 36% without it. Included in that 46% are people who would and could have been in the 36%. The Chinese numbers are pretty irrelevant as all their numbers regarding this pandemic are.

"Probably the best published information we have so far is from the Intensive Care National Audit and Research Center (ICNARC) in the UK. Of 165 patients admitted to ICUs, 79 (48%) died. Of the 98 patients who received advanced respiratory support—defined as invasive ventilation, BPAP or CPAP via endotracheal tube, or tracheostomy, or extracorporeal respiratory support—66% died.

Compare that to the 36% mortality rate of non-COVID patients receiving advanced respiratory support reported to ICNARC from 2017 to 2019."

So where are you seeing 46%? In the UK it is 66% mortality with Covid 19 and 36% without for same ventilation techniques.

[Soul Requiem]

Not entirely sure where I got that 46% number from.

[rodders]

Not entirely sure where I got that 46% number from.

So you don't see any issue that the UK published figures show nearly half of people in ICU and over two thirds of those ventilated are dying?

That we are up to nearly 13k dead (sans community deaths) in UK, so well on course to smash the 20K reasonable worse case target modelled by imperial college.

If the experts have it all sussed out then I'd hate to see it if they didn't.

[123456789.]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-52307339?at_medium=custom7&at_campaign=64&at_custom4=D4E44C80-7FE5-11EA-B292-86AD4744363C&at_custom1=%5Bpost+type%5D&at_custom3=%40BBCWorld&at_custom2=twitter

This is quite scary. It seems Jair Bolsonario has been pretty dreadful in this crisis. I am no fan of our government, and you'll see rants/ posts of varying coherency to that effect. However stories like this and pictures of Trump supporters attending protests against social distancing show exactly why the idea that our government belongs to the same brand of counter-intellectual, conspiratorial right-wing populism you see across the world is wide of the mark.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52309294
This is other, better, news regarding ventilators.

[123456789.]

Not entirely sure where I got that 46% number from.

So you don't see any issue that the UK published figures show nearly half of people in ICU and over two thirds of those ventilated are dying?

That we are up to nearly 13k dead (sans community deaths) in UK, so well on course to smash the 20K reasonable worse case target modelled by imperial college.

If the experts have it all sussed out then I'd hate to see it if they didn't.  

I don't think 20,000 was the 'reasonable worst case'. I think the phrase was if we managed to keep coronavirus deaths below 20,000 we'd have done well. If the rumours of 4,000 undocumented cases at the weekend were true and we're currently on 13,729, then, unfortunately the chances of us staying below 20,000 is quite slim. I think the worst case scenario was upwards of 200,000 if we did nothing. The reported story is that the govt. was resisting a lockdown and was pursuing herd immunity as a strategy until Niall Ferguson produced the report saying 180,00 people would die, then the country reacted, understandably badly and the government decided to implement a lockdown. Hence why the Douglas Carswells and Daniel Hannans of this world are bleating that we need to raise the lockdown because it isn't necessary. Although as proponents of the 'people know better than experts' mantra it seems bizarre they've decided the people are wrong on this.

[Soul Requiem]

Not entirely sure where I got that 46% number from.

So you don't see any issue that the UK published figures show nearly half of people in ICU and over two thirds of those ventilated are dying?

That we are up to nearly 13k dead (sans community deaths) in UK, so well on course to smash the 20K reasonable worse case target modelled by imperial college.

If the experts have it all sussed out then I'd hate to see it if they didn't.  

That doesn't even work as an argument at all and as numbers as stated that was seen as a best case scenario not worst.

[navyblueshorts]

Ventilators are a last resort so mortality rate is always high regardless of whether it's Covid-19 or not.

Actually not true, ventilation mortality with severe ARDS normally is around 30-35%, a lot better than seen with covid hence guidelines are being reviewed.

None of it is opinion or pseudoscience, it's all out there and I'll be back in a month to say I told you so.

See you then. What you'll be highly unlikely to be back to celebrate, though, is the fact that this is all down to SARS2 destroying haemoglobin.

Severe ARDS is, presumably, not so restricted to the elderly - comparing like-for-like?

ARDs is mainly bacterial no? Surely mostly occurs in elderly and vulnerable?

Generally bacterial? I'd say no:

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/acute-respiratory-distress-syndrome/

[navyblueshorts]

Not entirely sure where I got that 46% number from.

So you don't see any issue that the UK published figures show nearly half of people in ICU and over two thirds of those ventilated are dying?

That we are up to nearly 13k dead (sans community deaths) in UK, so well on course to smash the 20K reasonable worse case target modelled by imperial college.

If the experts have it all sussed out then I'd hate to see it if they didn't.  

I don't think 20,000 was the 'reasonable worst case'. I think the phrase was if we managed to keep coronavirus deaths below 20,000 we'd have done well¹. If the rumours of 4,000 undocumented cases at the weekend were true and we're currently on 13,729, then, unfortunately the chances of us staying below 20,000 is quite slim. I think the worst case scenario was upwards of 200,000 if we did nothing. The reported story is that the govt. was resisting a lockdown and was pursuing herd immunity as a strategy until Niall Ferguson produced the report saying 180,00 people would die, then the country reacted, understandably badly and the government decided to implement a lockdown.² Hence why the Douglas Carswells and Daniel Hannans of this world are bleating that we need to raise the lockdown because it isn't necessary. Although as proponents of the 'people know better than experts' mantra it seems bizarre they've decided the people are wrong on this.

¹ Precisely, and it's still correct.
² I think that's unlikely to be correct, as written. I doubt that UKG had anything else in mind once Ferguson's group had reported. It wasn't, at that point, because 'the country reacted badly'.

[rodders]

Not entirely sure where I got that 46% number from.

So you don't see any issue that the UK published figures show nearly half of people in ICU and over two thirds of those ventilated are dying?

That we are up to nearly 13k dead (sans community deaths) in UK, so well on course to smash the 20K reasonable worse case target modelled by imperial college.

If the experts have it all sussed out then I'd hate to see it if they didn't.  

I don't think 20,000 was the 'reasonable worst case'. I think the phrase was if we managed to keep coronavirus deaths below 20,000 we'd have done well¹. If the rumours of 4,000 undocumented cases at the weekend were true and we're currently on 13,729, then, unfortunately the chances of us staying below 20,000 is quite slim. I think the worst case scenario was upwards of 200,000 if we did nothing. The reported story is that the govt. was resisting a lockdown and was pursuing herd immunity as a strategy until Niall Ferguson produced the report saying 180,00 people would die, then the country reacted, understandably badly and the government decided to implement a lockdown.² Hence why the Douglas Carswells and Daniel Hannans of this world are bleating that we need to raise the lockdown because it isn't necessary. Although as proponents of the 'people know better than experts' mantra it seems bizarre they've decided the people are wrong on this.

¹ Precisely, and it's still correct.
² I think that's unlikely to be correct, as written. I doubt that UKG had anything else in mind once Ferguson's group had reported. It wasn't, at that point, because 'the country reacted badly'.

I think you've misunderstood. Imperial college modelled a number of interventions using reasonably worst case scenario figures, i.e. using Italian figures of 30% hospitalization originally they modelled viral pneumonia and underestimated the impact hence the herd immunity fiasco.

The results of the interventions ranged from doing nothing - leading to 250k deaths, or a combination of social distancing measures, the best case being 20k deaths.

So 20K is the predicted best case outcome in reasonably worst case scenario using suppression as the intervention. Whitty recently upped to 20-30k.

The entire published paper can be downloaded here -

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3LVdoufjX3n1nbvpetcPKpl3TvHQzjAkHq9w6Lrh2vtcOpgJ2E2vFk9qQ

The US scientist have modelled we will have >60k dead.

[Duty281]

Lockdown extended for another three weeks to the surprise of....no one.

[guildfordbat]

Lockdown extended for another three weeks to the surprise of....no one.

Hi Duty - yeah, exactly. I wasn't keen on some of the five conditions which need to be satisfied before lockdown eventually ends. Reminded me a bit of Blair and Brown and the aspects needing to be satisfied before we would join the Euro. Too much scope for fudge imo.

[123456789.]

These are the five conditions:

1. “We must protect the NHS’s (National Health Service) ability to cope. We must be confident that we are able to provide sufficient critical care and specialist treatment right across the UK.”

2. “We need to see a sustained and consistent fall in the daily death rates from coronavirus so we are confident that we’ve moved beyond the peak.”

3. “We need to have reliable data from SAGE (Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies) showing that the rate of infection is decreasing to manageable levels across the board.”

4. “We need to be confident that the range of operational challenges, including testing capacity and PPE (Personal Protective Equipment), are in hand, with supply able to meet future demand.”

5. “This is really crucial: we must be confident that any adjustments to the current measures will not risk a second peak of infections that overwhelms the NHS.

I think they're, generally speaking, pretty sound. It's good they have left room to fudge. It allows them to adapt and manoeuvre as we learn more about the disease. If they set very rigid conditions at this stage in the game and they were fulfilled then it could undermine public confidence to then maintain the lockdown if need be.
This may be ignorance talking but unless we can get the numbers down to next to nothing there's very little we can do to stop a second wave. I suppose if we manage to get it right back down the government can actually implement the test, trace and isolate plan that the Germans managed in the first place.

[Sponsored content]