COVID discussion thread IV

by Judith Curry

My latest roundup of articles

NY:  first results from a statewide antibody study: 14% [link]

A leaked Chinese study finds no benefit from anti-viral remdesivir in treating COVID-19 patients. reason.com/2020/04/23/lea

South Korean patients who test positive for reactivated COVID have little or no infectivity [link]

COVID-19 causes strokes in young adults [link]

COVID-19 superspreader events in 28 countries: critical patterns and lessons [link]

on the use of saliva as a diagnostic sample for #SARSCoV2 testing [link]

CDC’s failed coronavirus tests were tainted with coronavirus [link]

U.S. intelligence officials are still weighing the possibility that coronavirus might have escaped by accident from a Chinese lab. [link]

A mysterious blood-clotting complication is killing coronavirus patients [link]

Pandemic death toll twice as high as official figure [link]

Coronavirus patients don’t realize they have pneumonia  [link]

Coronavirus: curse of the ‘Bat Woman’.  What went on in the Wuhan lab? [link]

Coronavirus has mutated to become far deadlier in Europe than the milder strain that made its way to the US west coast, Chinese study finds mol.im/a/8237849

COVID19 – whats wrong with the models? [link]

How does coronavirus kill?  Clinicians trace a ferocious rampage through the body [link]

COVID-19 ability to mutate has been vastly underestimated [link]

A roundup of COVID drugs/vaccines being tested [link]

Early Results of Antibody Testing Suggest Number of COVID-19 Infections Far Exceeds Number of Confirmed Cases in Los Angeles County [link]

Forecasting S-curves is hard [link]

Contamination delayed CDC’s coronavirus test, scientists say [link]

public health interventions with the epidemiology of the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan based on analysis of 32,000+ lab-confirmed COVID-19 cases in Wuhan till Mar 8 appeared on April 10. [link]

Dont try to predict COVID19.  if you must, use deep uncertainty methods [link]

Policy and economy

Lockdowns don’t work [link]

Models, math and COVID19:  A public health response [link]

Ed Dolan’s roadmap for ending the COVID lockdown [link]

Coronavirus antibody testing shows LA County outbreak is up to 55 times bigger than reported cases. [link]

The secret to Germany’s COVID19 success: Angela Merkel is a scientist [link]

COVID19 and the policy sciences:  initial reactions and perspectives [link]

Doubt is essential for science – but for politicians its a sign of weakness [link]

Viral politics [link]

New pathogen, old politics [link]

Vietnam’s low cost COVID strategy [link]

We’re not going back to normal.  What will the new normal look like? [link]

COVID: do governments ever truly listen to the science? [link]

What the WHO said about COVID19 as the pandemic  unfolded [link]

How China deceived the WHO [link]

Inside America’s Two-Decade Failure to Prepare for Coronavirus politico.com/news/magazine/

“There is an absence of evidence to support the immediate national deployment of symptom tracking applications, digital contact tracing applications and digital immunity certificates.” [link]
.

Sociology

How to communicate effectively about the pandemic [link]

Could Covid-19 Affect Public Trust in Science? [link]

Typhoid Mary left a trail of scandal and death [link]

Rethinking human ecology in the age of COVID19 [link]

How not to lose the COVID19 communication war [link]

Is the virus giving us back philosophy [link]

391 responses to “COVID discussion thread IV

  1. The stroke article really caught my eye. I was sick with some bug, a really nasty awful one. My husband had a TIA in June due to a carotid artery dissection from a seatbelt accident. He recovered completely and was on meds to control his one risk factor. The artery had been declared all healed in January. My husband had one night of fever and one day of fatigue just after I had my bout but was otherwise unaffected. However he went on to have a mild stroke two nights later. His doctors are at a loss to explain it because his artery has healed. I will be really happy when we can have an antibody test. Maybe that explains what happened to him.

  2. Wow.

    I underestimated the Donald and I must apologize.

    I think he has figured it all out:

    Injecting people with bleach will get it done, I’m sure.

    • Very stable genius.

    • How many thousands of Americans have died so far because of Trump’s ignorance and incompetence?

      • My favorite part is when he says we can “hit the body” with ultraviolet or “just very powerful light.”

        But she’s gonna check. She’s gonna test it. Using very powerful light. Shell check.

        Why didn’t anyone else think of that? Huh?

      • How many? About 1/1000 of the number who died because of Cuomo’s order to rehab and nursing homes that they must take in Covid posiive patients. About 1/500th of the number who died because DeBlasio told them to go out to dinner, use the gym and enjoy the subway in New York City in the middle of the pandemic.
        And, finally, half to a third of the number who died under the enlightened hand of the French and Belgian governments.
        But thanks for playing.

      • Jeff –

        > How many? About 1/1000 of the number who died because of Cuomo’s order to rehab and nursing homes that they must take in Covid posiive patients. About 1/500th of the number who died because DeBlasio told them to go out to dinner, use the gym and enjoy the subway in New York City in the middle of the pandemic.

        Would you mind showing your math?

      • Joe - dallas

        D Appel- probably zero have died because of trump – probably a few less have died since he was early proponent of shutting off flights from China – but the reality- it does not matter who is in charge of the executive branch of the US government – their input will have little effect either way.

        You might want to get up to speed on the basic functions of the federal and state governments vs the health care industry

      • No one has died from your incompetence Appleman, or from Trumps.

        They died from a virus with no cure.

        No one is competent on the subject of COVID19 until the pandemic is over and accurate data are available for unbiased analysis.

        Past experience with the corona virus family suggests there will be no vaccine and we’ll have yet another virus to live with, that will not spread much in the warmer, more humid months.

        Statements and conclusions during a pandemic are usually wrong.

    • To be perfectly fair, I watched that video and heard nothing about injecting anyone with bleach, and I also saw Trump continually asking his medical adviser on the side if he as getting the treatment options right, which did indeed include an injection of some sort of disinfectant– according to his adviser. So you may think Trump is an idiot but please don’t make stuff up.

      • Don –

        I wasn’t attributing such a statement to Trump. I was merely mocking him.

        Don’t you think it’s even a bit funny that he’s telling his experts to investigate ideas bexausebrheubsreixknjim as intersting? Would you think he would first inquire as to the plausibility of his ideas? He was at the podium during a campaign rally press conference in the middle of a national emergency. Maybe he should save his m questions about effective treatment for the non-public facing task force meetings (which it is rumored, in the fake news, he often doesn’t attend).

      • er.. Because he thinks of them as interesting….

      • Now now, you know the rules for Trump bashing. Take everything out of context that you can to make Trump look bad. Take everything literally even when he’s obviously joking if it can make him look bad. Reinterpret every question Trump has so it sounds like he’s giving orders if it makes Trump look bad. I watch almost all of Trump’s updates and they give us tons of great information and then the press ask only gotcha questions of Trump and none of the good stuff ever gets into the media. The media has one goal and one goal only, make Trump look bad. And it works very well if you’re feeding Trump derangement syndrome.

      • My God, will the whining about Trump being bullied never cease?

      • An aerosol of some appropriate dilution of iodine+H20 sprayed by tube inserted into lungs could work. Probably good to add a little mild soap to it, as a surfactant. Ivory is good. Lungs like surfactant. Lowers the surface tension of the structures where the air/liquid interchange takes place. Viruses don’t do well when there are even small changes to their preferred environment. They hate iodine. Should not be a problem for people as long as the course of treatment is not too long. We used iodine to purify our drinking water, back in the jungle.

      • > An aerosol of some appropriate dilution of iodine+H20 sprayed by tube inserted into lungs could work.

        Don’t forget the bleach, Don. Don’t forget the bleach.

      • Do you think that bleach is synonymous with disinfectant, joshie? Not very bright.

      • @ Joshua Yr: “Don’t forget the bleach. Don’t forget the bleach.”

        The US Government already recommends drinking bleach as a health measure (Google: “bleach drinking water CDC” and “bleach drinking water EPA”). Remember the bleach. Remember the bleach.

      • I will say this, as much as Trump is a dope, and his sycophantic fans, well, sycophantic, it is really tiresome how the Whitehouse press spends all their time trying to gotcha Trump, and asking him questions that only feed into the rhetorical function of his daily campaign ralliies press conferences.

        I know what he and his sycophants get out of it, but how the press corp thinks they’re achieving anything constructive is beyond me.

        I really wish people could get past the inane tribalism. That they can’t even in the face of a pandemic is just pathetic.

      • OK. I’ll add something else. I just watch 20 minutes of coverage where they said the Trump recommended people to ingest bleach.

        OK. I was mocking Trump. But of course he didn’t actually recommend that people ingest bleach.

        Actually saying that Trump said that is as dumb and inexcusable as what Trump does.

      • @Joshua Yr: “But of course he [Trump] never recommended that anyone actually ingest bleach.”

        An excellent and fair-minded point! And the irony of it all is that it’s Dr. Fauci’s National Institute of Health that recommened that people ingest bleach (Google: “bleach drinking water NIH).

    • I love that today he claims he was being sarcastic. He obviously believes that his cult will swallow anything he says.

      My magic 8-ball says, “Most likely.”

      • You rely on your magic 8 ball far too much, joshie. That’s why you say dumb things and then have to run away when you are challenged. Have you read the VA “study”, yet? You remember, the very flawed thing that got you all excited and rejoicing about the “failure” of hydroxychlorquine.

        You pick apart with ignorant jibes every little “study” that somehow indicates we may be winning against the virus, but you swallow hook line and sinker whatever dubious BS that indicates we are losing the battle. Very odd behavior.

      • Don –

        How’s your epidemiological model for mortality working out?

      • Apparently the VA is still treating with JDQ, so maybe they have some positive anecdotal data.

      • My model is still kicking the —- out of the model they are using to run the country into the ground. I made one adjustment to 30,000. Will leave it at that, since nobody is relying on my guesses. I don’t think I will end up being off by hundreds of thousands. Your celebration is ugly. I used to suspect that you were just misguided. I know better now.

  3. Didn’t see the actual study, but summer is coming…

  4. Lockdowns don’t work [link]

    If you read this article, you’ll find that the author says he doesn’t have to prove this claim.

    And then cites evidence that the Wuhan lockdown “reduced the reproduction rate of the disease from 3.9 to 1.3,” then expects that European lockdowns should have produced an immediate cessation of new cases.

    I wonder what he thinks *has* reduced deaths in Europe.

    This isn’t a serious article; just one intended to get clicks.

    • Agree. The article says: “Why should I have to prove that lockdowns don’t work? The burden of proof is to show that they do work!”.
      As at today, per million population: USA 2679 cases, 152 deaths. NZ 302 cases, 4 deaths.
      QED.
      Lockdowns work. That doesn’t mean that they should be applied indefinitely, or that they come without their own costs, or anything else. It just means that lockdowns work.

    • stevenreincarnated

      Lock downs make sense if your hospitals are in danger of being overwhelmed. Ours are going bankrupt due to lack of work.

  5. There’s a discordant irony to what’s acceptable relative to different types of world wars. When protecting a nations way of life from another belligerent nations actions, one with global ambitions, then the world is willing to do global war; knowing that the ultimate price could surpass 10s of millions of human deaths, and come with inestimable financial cost; yet these are worthy tradeoffs, obviously, because this has happened twice in roughly a 100 years. Yet a global war against a virus is allowed to shut down the worlds economies, not a single life can be risked to protect economic viablity. An individual could make their own decision to be safe, remain in isolation if they so wished, or accept that risking ones own life is preferable to destroying their quality of life, perhaps forever. But it’s world governments that make all the decisions, the same risks exist. Interestingly many of the ones that want to stay locked down indefinitely today, the revolutionary fascist collectivists, are the same types we were fighting in the hot wars.

    • What makes you think economies were great during the 20th century world wars?

    • The individual who decides to carry on as normal, contracts the virus & turns into a “Super Spreader”.
      Or contracts the virus, gets very ill & presents at the local hospital.
      “Sorry, we’re full, go die quietly somewhere”
      An individual’s actions, impact upon others.
      Having said that, treating Covid-19 as a uniform infection is incorrect. It’s a series of foci, what needs doing, is what’s been done in South Korea & Germany. Testing, isolation & quarantine.
      The major centres of infection (read “Cities”) need locking down, for everywhere else, isolate, test & quarantine

      • jungletrunks

        My comment was mostly philosophical, not a specific recommendation, it was meant to contrast interesting cultural dichotomies.

        Specifically, the premise for the lockdown was/is to prevent overwhelming the hospitals and to protect life; it was/is the correct thing to do. The idea was/is to flatten the curve of infection; buyng time to build the necessary things to combat the disease; respirators/masks, etc., advancing various means to combat the virus, especially a curative vaccine, but also other treatment options.

        But there is a boisterous segment of society that believes a lockdown should last indefinitely until a cure is found. Indeed, that even after a cure is found, boycott going back to work. So while my post is philosophical, it also draws to a focal point. Those foolish people who look at the disease as the only possible catalyst for mass death.

        I’d say most believe the plan to reopen the economy (as described for the U.S.), is reasonable, and necessary. It likely will lead to pockets of increased infections, but currently the nation is in better position to isolate these conditions as the country advances towards a cure. To those who believe we should not reopen until a cure is found; these are radical fools who have no intention to calculate the numbers of dead that would result from a depression because human life was never their concern to begin with, these types can go pound beach sand.

  6. Oh, this could be bad news for the virus fanboys:
    “no safety concerns or efficacy concerns at this time”
    “Based on the event rate of COVID-19 illness observed in the control group, the sample size can be reduced by approximately one-third”
    Do you know what that means?

    Post-exposure Prophylaxis or Preemptive Treatment for SARS-Coronavirus-2
    https://covidpep.umn.edu/updates

    April 22, 2020: Second Interim Analysis Update

    On April 22, 2020, the independent Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) for the COVID-19 post-exposure prophylaxis trial has reviewed the cumulative safety data from 783 participants in the ongoing hydroxychloroquine prevention trial. The DSMB has identified no safety concerns or efficacy concerns at this time. We congratulate the study investigators on their enrollment thus far, and we will continue to provide oversight for the trial as specified in the DSMB charter.

    Based on the event rate of COVID-19 illness observed in the control group, the sample size can be reduced by approximately one-third with approximately 200 more research participants needed to complete the trial to demonstrate conclusively whether or not there is a 50% reduction in symptomatic illness with a 5-day course of hydroxychloroquine after a high-risk exposure to someone with COIVD-19. The next interim analysis is scheduled for May 6, 2020. Ongoing U.S. enrollment is occurring at http://www.covidpep.umn.edu and in Canada at: http://www.covid-19research.ca

    • > Do you know what that means?

      Looks like it could be good news. Let’s hope when the study is actually completed, they’ll have positive results. And lets hope those positive results are confirmed by other studies.

      You’ll be happy. I’ll be happy. And a lot of sick people will be happy. Win-win-win.

      • James Cross: You must have missed the memo. The Big Orange has moved on from hydroxychloroquine to bleach injections.

        It’s what anyone would suggest: If it works outside the body, can it be made to work inside the body? Probably not. Neither HCQ nor remdesivir is looking good right now, in vivo. But would you believe that ECMO or dialysis would work? Rat poison for a medical anticoagulant? An antihelminthic for schizophrenia?

    • You must have missed the memo. The Big Orange has moved on from hydroxychloroquine to bleach injections.

    • Matthew R Marler

      Don Monfort: “Based on the event rate of COVID-19 illness observed in the control group, the sample size can be reduced by approximately one-third”
      Do you know what that means?

      It probably means that the variability within the control group is less than was anticipated when they planned the trial.

      • Matt:It probably means that the variability within the control group is less than was anticipated when they planned the trial.

        I don’t see where it’s about anticipated variability within the control group, whatever that means. They clearly state that the sample size can be reduced due to the “event rate of COVID-19 illness observed in the control group”. Notice they don’t say anything about the event rate in the treatment group.

        Help me with the math, but doesn’t it stand to reason that if there are lot of events in the control group and few to none in the treatment group, they could reduce the sample size “to complete the trial to demonstrate conclusively whether or not there is a 50% reduction in symptomatic illness with a 5-day course of hydroxychloroquine after a high-risk exposure to someone with COIVD-19.”

        In other words, if they have 25 events in the control group and 6 events in the treatment group they can reduce the sample size. If it’s 25 in the control group and 19 in the treatment group they stick with the planned larger sample size. Make sense?

      • Don Monfort: Help me with the math, but doesn’t it stand to reason that if there are lot of events in the control group and few to none in the treatment group,

        It’s statistical power analysis. The sample size was chosen to give a high probability of rejecting the null hypothesis of no effect if indeed the effect is to reduce symtomatology by 50% The 50% target has not changed, but now they have better evidence of the within-group variability of the symptomotology. They would not likely be announcing in advance that the treatment looks like it was working better than expected. If they have a sequential design, they would likely wait until one of the stopping criteria had been met, instead of hinting that one of them looked like it would be met soon.

      • OK, that’s very interesting. What they said was:

        “Based on the event rate of COVID-19 illness observed in the control group, the sample size can be reduced by approximately one-third”

        I know what that means.

    • Don Monfort: “no safety concerns or efficacy concerns at this time”

      It probably means that adverse reactions and possible efficacy are about what was expected. NOT that there are no adverse reactions.

      • Also, we would need to know if the sampling was random, or if potential participants were excluded based on known side effects from the drug.

        If the latter is the case, then no adverse side effects in the experimental group would be of little value for assessing efficacy more broadly.

      • Pour cold water on it, Matt.

      • The Data and Safety Monitoring Board doesn’t make determinations of safety and efficacy based on expectations or variabilities. There are standards of safety and efficacy. When they say “no safety concerns or efficacy concerns at this time” they mean “no safety concerns or efficacy concerns at this time”.

      • I guess Matt agrees with me on this one.

      • Don Monfort: When they say “no safety concerns or efficacy concerns at this time” they mean “no safety concerns or efficacy concerns at this time”.

        There are safety concerns in any study with hydroxychloroquine. “Concerns at this time” can only be assessed relative to “concerns” at the start of the study.

      • So, you think there are safety concerns that have arisen in this trial due to adverse effects? They aren’t telling us about that? The truth is you are reading plain unambiguous words and making assumptions that are not justified. Why would they say there are no safety concerns, if there are safety concerns in the trial they are overseeing?

        I seem to recall you saying you had experience in clinical trials. Is my memory faulty on that? I made a lot of money investing in drug stocks and closely monitored and analyzed dozens of drug trials. When I didn’t know about something in particular, I walked over to Stanford and consulted with experts. I know this.

  7. Dr. Didier Raoult: Since 2008, Raoult has been the director of the Unité de Recherche sur les Maladies Infectieuses et Tropicales Emergentes (URMITE; in English, Research Unit in Infectious and Tropical Emergent Diseases), collaborating with CNRS (National Center for the Scientific Research), IRD (Research for the Development Institute), INSERM (National Institute of Health and Medical Research) and the Aix Marseille University, in Marseille. His laboratory employs more than 200 people, including 86 researchers who publish between 250 and 350 papers per year and have produced more than 50 patents.[3] Raoult has also been involved in the creation of eight startups.[4]

    Dr. Raoult has treated 2500 Covid 19 patients with HDQ+AZ with only 10 deaths. Dr. Raoult puts the kibosh on the terrible VA retrospective that caused the virus fanboys much excitement and joy:

    Click to access Response-to-Magagnoli.pdf

    • Don –

      > Dr. Raoult has treated 2500 Covid 19 patients with HDQ+AZ with only 10 deaths.

      So it looks like about .5% CFR?

      –sip–

      The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM) at the University of Oxford currently estimates the CFR globally at 0.51%, with all the caveats pertaining thereto.

      –snip–

      https://www.virology.ws/2020/04/05/infection-fatality-rate-a-critical-missing-piece-for-managing-covid-19/

      • A 0.5% CFR counting only those cases being treated is not a true CFR, which should actually be the IFR (infection fatality rate) since it’s known that a large portion of those infected with Covid do not have symptoms or else have mild symptoms, and the asymptomatic infections, at least, do not turn into “cases.” What we really want to know is the IFR, because that’s the true measure of the lethality of the virus.

      • Yes, we want to know the IFR, but if we’re talking about people who are being treated, it is likely referencing the CFR, no?

        > CFR is the ratio of the number of deaths divided by the number of confirmed (preferably by nucleic acid testing) cases of disease.

      • “The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM) at the University of Oxford currently estimates the CFR globally at 0.51%, with all the caveats pertaining thereto.”

        Please pay attention to what your link is saying, and the distinction the CEBM makes between the CFR and the IFR. The estimated IFR is 0.1%-0.26%, and that is not the mark of a deadly killer that warrants shutting down the entire economy.

        Please also understand that the CFR for the Diamond Princess is not representative of the population-wide CFR (which I believe in the same as the IFR for the Diamond Princess) since we know that older adults are hardest hit by this and children barely hit at all.

      • > The estimated IFR is 0.1%-0.26%, and that is not the mark of a deadly killer that warrants shutting down the entire economy.

        There’s still a lot of uncertainty about the IFR. The range jn estimates from a wide assortment of credible sources is rather wide. Most of those I’ve seen are considerably higher than the numbers you just posted.

        And of course, the aggregated number is inky of limited use. What really is important is to look at the rates in specific populations. For examlle, it’s almost as if it’s a different disease for young people compared to older people. It also affects different demographics differently (in paer explained by different prevalence of comorbidities).

        Finally, no doubt, the mortality rates would be different (greater) if our hospitals were overwhelmed. Hence a problem with your counterfactual argument about mandated social distancing.

      • Don132: A 0.5% CFR counting only those cases being treated is not a true CFR,

        That is true. But if you read the comment by Joshua right after the comment by Don Monfort, I think the point of Joshua’s comment is that the CFR with HCQ is indistinguishable from the CFR without HCQ (Joshua’s “about 0.5%” ought to be “0.4%”, imo, followed by the assertion that that 0.4% and 0.51% are practically indistinguishable. But that’s a rhetorical point, imo, not much of a criticism.)

      • You are amazing, joshie. Keep trying.

      • Mr. 132,
        Joshie real error is that he is conflating the death rate among hospitalized COVID 19 patients with something entirely different. He is not very bright.

      • Don –

        > Joshie real error is that he is conflating the death rate among hospitalized COVID 19 patients with something entirely different. He is not very bright.

        People hospitalized with a COVID would be cases with COVID, no? The fatality with those patients would be a CFR, no?

        If not why don’t you explain it to me? You’re smart. Maybe I’ll be able to understand.

      • OK. Admittedly, those hospitalized will only be the most severe cases. You’re right.

      • Alternatively, if the 0.5% CFR is applicable to the Raoult studies, you’d expect 12.5 deaths in 2500 people. Instead, there were 10, a reduction of 20%. (don’t worry too much about the half death, think 12 or 13; or imagine similar percents in a sample twice as large.)

        Without a true control group, there is no way to estimate the effectiveness of the treatment in the population of people getting care in his clinic. Without the drug, his patients still receive high quality care.

      • Matthew –

        Yeah, I bumped it up from 4% to 5% Fair enough.

      • Why would the 0.5%CFR be applicable to the Raoult study? How about comparing his results to other hospitals’ outcomes? Compare his results with the results of the VA. Or, the hospitals in Italy, NYC. Have you seen any other examples of hospitals treating 2500 COVID 19 patients and saving all but 10? Do you think that Dr. Raoult is an idiot? That he is claiming success where there is none. This isn’t his first rodeo.

        A lot of folks have fallen victim to the TDS media vendetta against HDQ and anybody who uses it. Google Dr. Raoult. Formerly widely respected expert on infectious diseases and clinician and now they call him a charlatan for treating his patients with HDQ, because Orange Man Bad. Just a freaking pathetic situation.

      • moderation for one word
        Why would the 0.5%CFR be applicable to the Raoult study? How about comparing his results to other hospitals’ outcomes? Compare his results with the results of the VA. Or, the hospitals in Italy, NYC. Have you seen any other examples of hospitals treating 2500 COVID 19 patients and saving all but 10? Do you think that Dr. Raoult is an idiot? That he is claiming success where there is none. This isn’t his first rodeo.

        A lot of folks have fallen victim to the TDS media vendetta against HDQ and anybody who uses it. Google Dr. Raoult. Formerly widely respected expert on infectious diseases and clinician and now they call him a chXXXXtan for treating his patients with HDQ, because Orange Man Bad. Just a freaking pathetic situation.

      • comment went to moderation wait for it
        How about comparing Dr. Raoult’s results with the results from other hospitals in France, Italy, NYC? This isn’t his first rodeo.

      • Don Monfort: Why would the 0.5%CFR be applicable to the Raoult study?

        The only good comparison would be to the control group in a randomized double blind study by his staff on patients from his catchment area, admitted according to the same criteria.

        On the “optimistic” side, suppose that patients like his, if untreated, had a CFR of 5%. Then the expected number of deaths would have been 125, and the HCQ could be credited with saving 115 of them.

        We’d know more now if he had randomly assigned half, or maybe 1/3d, of his patients to placebo in a double-blind study. Why exactly has he found it worthwhile to prolong ignorance?

        If HCQ really works, a persuasive well-done study would save a lot of lives.

      • I see it look it like this, Dr. Raoult is treating patients not conducting clinical trials. If he wanted to prove something in a clinical trial and deny half of the participants what he thinks is the best care, he has the ability and the means to do it. From wiki:

        “He was “classified among the ten leading French researchers by the journal Nature, for the number of his publications (a credit of more than two thousand) and for his citations number”, in 2008, as reported by a daily economic newspaper covering his work.[15]

        According to the Thomson Reuters source “Highly Cited Researchers List”, Raoult is among the most influential researchers in his field and his publications are among the 1% most consulted in academic journals. He is one of the 99 most cited microbiologists in the world and one of the 73 most highly cited French scientists.[16] He is a world reference for Q fever and Whipple’s disease.[17] In April 2017, on Google Scholar citations,[18] he cumulated over 104,000 citations and an h index of 148. He is also on the list of the 400 most cited authors in the biomedical world.[19]

        According to the analysis of the publications from 2007 to 2013, by Kathleen Gransalke, for Labtimes (2017/02), Raoult appears at the top of the European classification (including Israel) with 18,128 citations.[20]

        He totalizes more than 2,300 indexed publications including 8 in Science, and 3 in Nature, the two most visible scientific journals according to the N&S index of Shanghai’s ranking.[21]”

        There are dozens of ongoing HDQ trials. Dr. Raoult is reporting his clinical experience. Not representing it as a formal clinical trial. Let’s compare his results with the results of the rest of the world:

        world cases 2,826,659 dead 196,971 0.06968333

        Dr. Raoult cases 2,500 dead 10 0.004

        I don’t want to spend any more time on this, so you can do the math and please correct me if I got something wrong. Keep in mind that world cases are all cases that have tested positive. I won’t go looking for the number that have been hospitalized for treatment. I would take my chances with Doc Raoult and HDQ+AZ.

      • Some of you are confusing the CFR with the IFR.
        The CFR is the fatalities per confirmed cases– more or less. Furthermore, if you count only hospitalized cases as “cases” then that further elevates the CFR, because not all cases need to be hospitalized.

        But not all infected individuals end up being cases: they have no symptoms. The number we really want is the infection fatality rate, IFR, because that tells us the number of people who’ve been infected by this horrible, deadly, lethal virus that turn up infected seriously enough to be fatalities. Turns out, not really that many at all. Hence, we need to fallback on the CSF to scare the living crap out of people, and jack that number up as much as possible.

      • True enough, Mr 132. What I just cited is a comparison of Dr. Raoult’s treatment of hospitalized patients to the most generous calculation of the way the rest of the world is handling their medical business.

      • Don Monfort: please correct me if I got something wrong.

        What you don’t know is what the survival rate of his patients would be without the treatment he gives them. Are they in better health than other cohorts? Is the environment less supportive of the virus? Is that strain of virus less lethal than others? Without knowing that, we can not say that his research has increased our knowledge about the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine.

        We didn’t know if it worked before he treated 2500 patients, and we still do not know.

      • Dr. Raoult is not conducting clinical trials. He is practicing medicine. He doesn’t need to set up a control arm to practice medicine. We are talking about treating a deadly disease with zero clinically “proven” interventions. Zero.

        What you don’t know is what Dr. Raoult knows. And what you don’t have are his credentials and his experience. If you want to ignore the results he reports, great.

      • Don Monfort:What you don’t know is what Dr. Raoult knows.

        I know what he has published and announced. If he has evidence that HCQ works in his population for SARS CoV-2, and a tally of the adverse reactions, he has kept them secret so far.

        Nullius in verba. Royal Society of London.

        In God we trust. All others bring data. American Statistical Association.

      • My comment keeps going into moderation. This is a waste of time.

        Matt: Your comments in this thread are bizarre. I thought you were the stats man.

      • Don Monfort: Your comments in this thread are bizarre.

        So quote some.

        You have totally missed a few themes:

        Statistical power analysis and the role of data and safety monitoring boards.

        The point of double-blind randomized clinical trials.

      • I am sure I am wasting my time again:

        “We’d know more now if he had randomly assigned half, or maybe 1/3d, of his patients to placebo in a double-blind study. Why exactly has he found it worthwhile to prolong ignorance?”

        Dr. Raoult is treating patients in a novel disease pandemic. He’s a medical Doctor. Why do you think he is obligated to perform clinical trails, when he would prefer to treat all of his patients with the best care that his judgement dictates? Your prolonged ignorance is not Dr. Raoult’s fault or problem.

        This is nonsense:
        “Alternatively, if the 0.5% CFR is applicable to the Raoult studies, you’d expect 12.5 deaths in 2500 people. Instead, there were 10, a reduction of 20%. (don’t worry too much about the half death, think 12 or 13; or imagine similar percents in a sample twice as large.)”

        I will help you, again:

        world cases 2,826,659 dead 196,971 0.06968333

        Dr. Raoult cases 2,500 dead 10 0.004

        See the difference? Do you think he is making this up? You dismiss Dr. Raoult’s very distinguished history as a medical researcher and clinician. I am done with you.

      • Don Monfort: Why do you think he is obligated to perform clinical trails, when he would prefer to treat all of his patients with the best care that his judgement dictates?

        I didn’t say he was obligated to; I said that we’d know more if he had done so — in particular, we’d know the base survival rate of COVID-19 patients from his catchment area treated in his clinic by his team.

        It is a bit of a mystery that he was able to treat 2500 infected patients without having any adverse reactions from the hydroxychloroquine. His patients must be unusually healthy.

      • Well, you are making things up again. What a surprise. If you had actually read Dr Raoult’s reports you would know that he has reported adverse reactions. He stops whatever is suspected of causing them, when he sees them. That is called, practicing medicine. Something you know nothing about. What you need to do is get yourself informed on what you are yammering about.

        Dr’ Raoult’s adverse events are low to none, because he knows what he is doing. This is the last link I will give you, without receiving a substantial research fee:

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7135139/

        If you bother to read that, you will find that Doc Raoult has been using HDQ for decades to treat Q fever and Whipple’s disease. I told you this before: wiki “He is a world reference for Q fever and Whipple’s disease.”

        I am sure that of the gazillions of peer reviewed papers the Doctor has published, you could find some that mention how he deals with adverse events.

        If you bother to read it, you will also find his rational for using HDQ against the COVID 19 virus, with references, if you get that far.

        Bottom line is, that you are being stubbornly ignorant and judgemental. Dr. Raoult is legit. Get over it. Please stop with the ludicrous uninformed assumptions.

    • Hopefully, outlier results? Or since there been no official report, maybe the final report will be more promising (plus, trust but verify with the NY Post)

      > Those who took the medicine, with or without the antibiotic, weren’t any more likely to survive than those who didn’t, the lead researcher on the New York study told CNN.

      “We don’t see a statistically significant difference between patients who took the drugs and those who did not,” said David Holtgrave, dean of the University at Albany School of Public Health.

      https://nypost.com/2020/04/23/hydroxychloroquine-had-no-effect-on-seriously-ill-in-new-york-study/

    • “I know what he has published and announced.”

      I doubt that and I am not going to give you any more links. What you think you know about this is no longer interesting to me. Your comments in this thread have been goofy. For example:

      “matthewrmarler | April 24, 2020 at 1:57 pm |
      Alternatively, if the 0.5% CFR is applicable to the Raoult studies, you’d expect 12.5 deaths in 2500 people. Instead, there were 10, a reduction of 20%. (don’t worry too much about the half death, think 12 or 13; or imagine similar percents in a sample twice as large.)”

      A 0.5% CFR is not applicable to Raoult’s patient sample. You are making it up. If you can’t get over the fact that Dr. Raoult is not choosing in this crisis to conduct a double blind randomized placebo controlled clinical trial, just ignore his results.

  8. re the Chinese Remdesivir study: YGBK. The report says “The biomedical website STAT just spotted an abstract that had been accidentally posted on a World Health Organization website. The document, which has since been taken down …..” – and someone expects us to take it seriously? It’s posted accidentally, it’s from China, it’s from the WHO, it’s on a website not in a journal, and it’s been taken down, so no-one can check it. Ha ha b—-y ha.

    WHO on Earth would want the west not to know about Remdesivir if it actually works? Probably the people who worked so assiduously to ensure that the virus infected the west in the first place: China and WHO (sorry, I just repeated myself).

    • Au contraire, mon ami, the study indicated that Remdesivir was not effective. Gilead was apparently one of the entities who pushed for it to be taken down, arguing that hazard ratios had been calculated in a manner inverse to custom, and so the paper was misleading.

    • Mike,
      The study showed the opposite – that remdesivir was ineffective. The story I read was that Gilead was one of the entities which requested it should be taken down, arguing that it was misleading on a technical point – the calculation of hazard ratios..

  9. Thanks to the wonders of the waybackmachine, I have the essay on the biochemistry of Covid. I post this neither to support it or to deny it: I don’t know. What I do know is that the link to the original essay was taken down.
    https://web.archive.org/web/20200419003336/https://www.hippocraticpost.com/covid-19-update/has-covid-19-had-us-all-fooled/

    The money quote:
    “Here’s the breakdown of the whole process, including some ELI5-level cliff notes. Much has been simplified just to keep it digestible and layman-friendly. Your red blood cells carry oxygen from your lungs to all your organs and the rest of your body. Red blood cells can do this thanks to hemoglobin, which is a protein consisting of four “hemes”. Hemes have a special kind of iron ion, which is normally quite toxic in its free form, locked away in its center with a porphyrin acting as it’s ‘container’. In this way, the iron ion can be ‘caged’ and carried around safely by the hemoglobin, but used to bind to oxygen when it gets to your lungs. When the red blood cell gets to the alveoli, or the little sacs in your lungs where all the gas exchange happens, that special little iron ion can flip between FE2+ and FE3+ states with electron exchange and bond to some oxygen, then it goes off on its little merry way to deliver O2 elsewhere. Here’s where COVID-19 comes in. Its glycoproteins bond to the heme, and in doing so that special and toxic oxidative iron ion is “disassociated” (released). It’s basically let out of the cage and now freely roaming around on its own.”

    And later:

    “How does chloroquine work? Same way as it does for malaria. You see, malaria is this little parasite that enters the red blood cells and starts eating hemoglobin as its food source. The reason chloroquine works for malaria is the same reason it works for COVID-19 — while not fully understood, it is suspected to bind to DNA and interfere with the ability to work magic on hemoglobin. The same mechanism that stops malaria from getting its hands on hemoglobin and gobbling it up seems to do the same to COVID-19 (essentially little snippets of DNA in an envelope) from binding to it.”

    So if you didn’t want people to get cured because you wanted to instill panic and fear and prevent people from working, assembling, and travelling freely …. someone slap me, I must be feverish.

  10. Are we way more risk averse now?

    I have some good history books and went back to lookup both the 1957 and 1968 pandemics. Niether rated an entry.

    There were no lockdowns but to date, many more people died from ’57 and ’68 flu than from COVID-19. Of course, we can never know the counter-factual – how many would have died without the lockdowns?

    Maybe in ’57 and ’68 there wasn’t enough knowledge.
    And in ’57 there weren’t ICUs to ration and there were very few in ’68.
    But it’s very possible the lockdowns were a huge mistake.

    If so, will any policy maker be able to admit mistake?

    • Of course, the deaths are not yet complete for COVID-19.

      About 50k US deaths versus 100k in ’68.

      A population weighted comparison might be 170k deaths for 2020,
      and we might yet get to 170k.

    • The CDC says the 1957 flu pandemic accounted for 70,000 deaths in the US. I got it.That was the sickest I’ve ever been, but I don’t remember a daily tally of deaths in the headlines.

      We’ve got an institutionalized societal tolerance of deaths, whether we want to admit it to ourselves or not. Nearly 3 million die from a variety of causes in the US every year. If every life is important, why aren’t we spending another $1 Trillion each year to reduce the 600,000 cancer deaths by 1, if that is what it would take? Or how about spending another $1 Trillion to reduce the 600,000 heart disease by 1? Would we do it if put to a referendum?

      Of course not. It is possible with massive amount of spending to reduce deaths, but we as a society have made those trade off calculations, whether consciously or not. We are making these public policy choices every year during the governmental budget process. Our risk tolerance and cost benefit analyses in these times are just so stark that we can’t bury them and rationalize why we accept the life/death decisions we have been making all along.

      Perhaps if there were clickers shown on our TVs with a running total of all those deaths, we would be aware of how we’ve always made these choices.

    • Data from workers in the field. Serfs like that. ) COVID-19 Briefing by Dr Erickson.

      • Beth –

        I skimmed for about a minute, and just one example – he calculated the infection rate in Spain by dividing the population by the rate of people who tested positive.

        Do you think it occurred to him that people who are positive are more likely to get tested, and thus the rate of people testing positive might be just a tad higher than what the rate would be for the entire population?

        So he thinks the fatality rate is maybe one tenth of the seasons flu.

        How likely do you think it is that he’s right about that?

        > Data from workers in the field.

        Do you think that maybe there are some practitioners who might have a different view than he has?

      • Joshua,
        Much uncertainty about CV -19. Only learn from above Briefing that in the US over 4 million tested. In Californian testing by Dr Erickson’s group, from the thousands tested he extrapolates the positives found to 12% of the population. Now this could be skewed if those tested were only from those who ‘thought’ they had the virus, but to maybe balance that, we have been told there’s a large group, maybe younger people who are asymptomatic so could still be around that 12% seems to me.

        Re death rate, o.o3% , as Dr Erickson [points out, Californian hospitals are half empty and losing money – and there’s the thing that Hospital Administration receives $13000 for no. of CoVID cases registered, so I’d venture, maybe a % of registered cases not COVID.

        Lots of maybes…

      • Yes, Beth, there are a lot of maybes. And there are a lot of political axes to be ground.

      • Beth –

        He says that if we “extrapolate data,” 39% of New Yorkers are infected…meaning that 7.5 million are infected in NY, and he’s extrapolating infection rates based on the number (some 649k) of people who tested positive – but not for the *antibodies,* but who tested positive for *the virus.* That’s how he suggests that we “follow the science.”

        Talks about Spain…204,178 positive tests out of 930,000 total tests. 22% of all who tested were positive in Spain – Spain has 47 million people, “that equates to about 10 million cases in Spain” … And then he says…because 21,282 died out of 47 million, he calculates that 0.05 chance of dying from COVID if you’re a citizen of Spain.

        Either it’s a deliberate attempt to confuse people, or its just embarrassing.

  11. Since we’re in the business of asking questions…

    With all deference to every human, particularly the elderly, among whom I now consider myself,

    Is the COVID-19 outbreak a net positive for society?

    The strongest indicator of death from CV is age, with an exponential increase for those past late middle age. A looming problem for the global economy is the old-age dependency ratio. You see where I’m going, a place that no one likes to consider, but COVID-19 tends to leave a younger, healthier society.

    Is COVID-19 a benefit to the younger?

    “Boomer remover” aside, the investment portfolio of baby boomers is thought to be tens of trillions of dollars. This amount dwarfs the amount governments have so far thrown at the self induced depression. These funds are going to millennials eventually but COVID will bring this forward.

    Also, Sweden.

    Politically, many wanted Sweden’s health care, though mortality rates seem about the same in Sweden as the US.
    Probably different constituents want Sweden’s “stay open” policy, which may have been the most effective policy.

    Both can ask: “Why can’t we be like Sweden?”

    • “A looming problem for the global economy is the old-age dependency ratio. You see where I’m going, a place that no one likes to consider, but COVID-19 tends to leave a younger, healthier society.”

      That’s exactly why we need Death Panels. Obama was right after all. Why are all the Republicans so opposed to the Death Panels?

      • No, people should, however, be their own death panel.

        The numbers for COVID leading to intubation are 20% survival with most of those not lasting too much longer and certainly with degraded life and ICU PTSD. There’s a decrease of immune response with age, and futile efforts to fight it may be better spent elsewhere.

        Affluenza also seems to degrade immune response.

      • Curious George

        There is a very simple solution to the old age problem:
        1. Effective immediately, retirees are allowed to cross on a red light.
        2. Effective January 1, 2022 id becomes mandatory,

      • In any economic system there are always “death panels”, whatever society chooses to call them. Even if society chooses to ignore their existence. Resources are finite, including healthcare resources.

    • > . A looming problem for the global economy is the old-age dependency ratio.

      There are many looming problems for the global economy, and COVID – 19 is going to make a lot of the biggest problems far worse.

      > Politically, many wanted Sweden’s health care, though mortality rates seem about the same in Sweden as the US.

      It’s really amazing how easily people drift towards comparing completely different countries, with vast difference in many of the variables that help to explain mortality rates, to give them a boost into their favored political hobby horses.

  12. Not surprisingly, Albert Camus’ The Plague is a current best seller.

    I’d had it recommended to me back in the normal times, but it really is enlightening, both philosophically as well as wrt to COVID-19.

    There’s a humility before nature to reflect on.

    The similar blaming of governments and even the efficacy of masks portrayed within.

    Also, Camus frequently refers to the weather both in The Plague and other works. I didn’t realize, but his first job was with the Weather Bureau.

    Worthy of a read for the sheltered in place.

    • Turbulent Eddie: Not surprisingly, Albert Camus’ The Plague is a current best seller.

      There is also a popular board game named “Pandemic”. Players pretend to be a team of experts working against the clock to prevent disaster.

    • I can’t find it in The Wall Street Journal bestseller list.

  13. Here’s a long China-exculpatory piece, from America’s National Public Radio, in need of a critique:

    https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/04/23/841729646/virus-researchers-cast-doubt-on-theory-of-coronavirus-lab-accident
    Virus Researchers Cast Doubt On Theory Of Coronavirus Lab Accident
    NPR: April 23, 2020 7:08 AM ET
    GEOFF BRUMFIEL EMILY KWONG

    “The assessment, made by more than half-a-dozen scientists familiar with lab accidents and how research on coronaviruses is conducted, casts doubt on recent claims that a mistake may have unleashed the coronavirus on the world.”

    • This is a compelling essay that takes such arguments you reference to apart:
      https://harvardtothebighouse.com/2020/01/31/logistical-and-technical-analysis-of-the-origins-of-the-wuhan-coronavirus-2019-ncov/

      There’s a lot of science activism:
      https://www.nature.com/news/inside-the-chinese-lab-poised-to-study-world-s-most-dangerous-pathogens-1.21487

      “The Wuhan lab cost 300 million yuan (US$44 million), and to allay safety concerns it was built far above the flood plain and with the capacity to withstand a magnitude-7 earthquake, although the area has no history of strong earthquakes. It will focus on the control of emerging diseases, store purified viruses and act as a World Health Organization ‘reference laboratory’ linked to similar labs around the world. “It will be a key node in the global biosafety-lab network,” says lab director Yuan Zhiming.”

      “World Health Organization ‘reference laboratory’” The U.S. has even funded this viral research in China. It’s incomprehensible why this was allowed to happen.

      I think we are only at the beginning stages of seeing, uh, “exculpatory” evidence. The same types who tweak climate models will be there to lend a hand.

      • Roger Knights

        Thanks to you and all who objected to NPR’s exculpation of China, which I linked to. That’s what I was hoping to provoke.

    • Roger Knights: “The assessment, made by more than half-a-dozen scientists familiar with lab accidents and how research on coronaviruses is conducted, casts doubt on recent claims that a mistake may have unleashed the coronavirus on the world.”

      There is a well-documented history of scientists sometimes not adhering to best laboratory practices and consequently releasing potential pathogens into the population. So a review of what the standards are and how most scientists adhere to them most of the time is of little help in understanding a particular outbreak.

    • Whether it was from the lab or the wet market, the Red China thugocracy is responsible.

  14. If you listen to Ray Dalio, we’ve been headed to global depression as part of the long term interest rate cycle, anyway. COVID-19 may just be the precipitating factor.

    One aspect of the economy is population growth, slowing globally and even negative in more and more countries.

    One possibility with shelter in place is a population boomlet?
    Another possibility because of anxiety is fewer babies?

    Which one prevails?

    • “One aspect of the economy is population growth, slowing globally and even negative in more and more countries.”

      Demographics certainly are part of the economic growth equation. Japan has been in a funk since 1990 when their housing bubble popped and their slowdown in growth in population turned into an actual decline. Some believe that by 2065 they will have 30% fewer people. The Bank of Japan has been pushing on a string since 1990 with purchases of their government debt. They now have negative yielding Sovereign debt and apparently they are considering purchasing high yield corporate debt, maybe even equities.

      Since 1948 the US labor force participation rate for males has undergone a long term decline. That was offset for 50 years by increasing rates for females but that peaked in the 1990s. Our combined rate is still lower than in the 1990s, with only a slight uptick recently.

      The foundation of the increase in America’s standard of living post WWII were increases of the working population and productivity. Since 2000, those two factors have taken a hit. Monetary and Fiscal Policy can only do so much. The organic elements of a robust economy still have to exist. I don’t know if they do any longer.

      The rumor on The Street today is that negative rates in the US are under consideration. God help us.

      • “negative rates in the US are under consideration.”

        The market may drive them there before the fed.

        Peter Zeihan predicts oil futures will go negative also when global storage saturates.

        Certainly interesting times and they’re not done yet.

  15. Also, Viagra for COVID

  16. The end of globalization will not mean, however, a simple transition to the Westphalian system, to realism and a system of closed trade states (Fichte). Such would require the well- defined ideology that existed in early Modernity, but which was completely eradicated in late Modernity, and especially in Postmodernity. The demonization of anything remotely resembling “nationalism” or “fascism” has led to the total rejection of national identities, and now the severity of the biological threat and its crude physiological nature makes national myths superfluous. The military-medical dictatorship does not need additional methods to motivate the masses, and moreover, nationalism only enhances the dignity, self-consciousness and civil feeling of society which contradict the rules of the “naked life”. For the society to come, there are only two criteria – healthy and sick. All other forms of identity, including national ones, have no meaning. Approximately the same was true for communism, which was also a motivating ideology that mobilized the consciousness of citizens to build a better society. All these ideologies are archaic, meaningless, redundant and counterproductive in the fight against coronavirus. Therefore, it would be wrong to see any “new fascism” or “new communism” in the impending post-liberal paradigm. It will be something else.

    Dugin argues the reaction to this pox has completely undermined the political, economic and ideological underpinning of the western liberal democratic ideal, and, as such, that order is dead, and will not return.
    What will come in its place is a technocratic dictatorship of local forces, based on raw fear and the paradigm of sick/healthy.

    I find one of his questions very interesting: Is this a total change in world reality, or will the west slowly come back to something close to where it was?

    I agree with Dugin.

    https://www.geopolitica.ru/en/article/pandemic-and-politics-survival-horizons-new-type-dictatorship

  17. Pingback: COVID Thread IV — Climate Etc. – lifeunderwriter.net

  18. Andrew Gelman on the “Lockdowns don’t work” article:

    > My reply: This is one of the worst studies I’ve ever seen in my life. It’s a master class in stupid

    Ouch.

    https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/04/24/10-on-coronavirus/

    • Just saw a very pessimistic interview with Donald McNeil that talked about how difficult it was to make vaccines, particularly coronavirus vaccines which sometimes have the effect of making it more likely to get the disease. So he emphasized thoroughly the need to test and not rush it out.

      But another issue was that the US doesn’t have capacity to make the required doses even if we had a vaccine. Answer to that problem: we might need to ask China to make the vaccine for us.

    • Good Lord, we will not have a safe vaccine for this anytime soon. We may have a vaccine, yes, but it won’t be safe (i.e., thoroughly tested.)

      The sensible way through this, as Dr. David Katz and others have proposed and as Sweden is practicing de facto if not in theory, is to let most healthy people, who will get mild or no symptoms, become exposed and hence immune, and then to allow the elderly and frail out if they wish, or let them hunker down until a vaccine comes along. I am 100% for a vaccine if that will quell fears, but I highly doubt we’ll have one soon, if ever. We’ve been trying to get vaccines for coronaviruses forever.

  19. DATE NEW CASES INCREASE % # TESTS
    4/17/2020 31,790 -3,068 -55 148,690
    4/18/2020 29,564 -2,226 -7 168,397
    4/19/2020 27,354 -2,210 -7.4 139,511
    4/20/2020 28,249 895 3.2 183,117
    4/21/2020 32,037 3,788 13.4 138,451
    4/22/2020 19,554 -12,483 -38.9143,549
    4/23/2020 32,124 12,570 64.2 158,486
    4/24/2020 39,887 7,763 24.1 465,986
    LOOK AT THE NUMBER OF TESTS!!!
    Now they they must be going for those without symptoms.
    Tomorrow is another day.

    • The above over the last 6 days tests 183,117 to 138,451
      Positive 32,124 to 27,354
      Today tests 465,986 positive 39,887
      The President did not mention this.
      The difference must be asymetric. and they are not requiring reason for test.

  20. Podcast of modelers talking about modeling in the context of COVID 19:

    https://castbox.fm/episode/Epidemiological-Modeling%2C-Policy%2C-and-Covid-19-(Daniel-Kaufman%2C-Eric-Winsberg%2C-%26-John-Symons)-id37106-id254740525

    One of the modelers said something I found quite interesting (paraphrasing):

    > If our most important goal is reducing the strain on the healthcare system, then you can often get away with lower levels of fidelity in the model.

    +++++

    I think that framing applies pretty well to climate modeling, and I think I agree with what the modeler said – and that what he’s saying is an important factor in the risk assessment process. We all necessarily have subjective priorities that play into how we assess the “fit for purpose” of the modeling. People like to pretend that “fit for purpose” is some kind of objective assessment. It isn’t, because it necessarily depends on subjective assessments.

    In this case, I personally think it makes sense to put some “post-stratification” weighting onto the welfare of heroes who risk their lives on a daily basis to take care of others. That would apply to doctors and nurses, and home health aides and grocery store workers, etc.

    Perhaps one of the most important parts of the process is to try to make explicit what our priorities are so we can find common interests there, or negotiate different interests. The bigger problem is that people have a tendency to weaponize those discussions.

  21. The biggest news was this week that someone who died Feb 6 in California of Covid -19 and wasn’t a travel-related case. That means the virus was rampaging through the most heavily populated state of the US for about two months or more before there were any lockdowns anywhere.
    Despite this, California has a death rate per 100k population of 4, or significantly better than superstar Germany. This isn’t because Trump or Gavin Newsom are scientists like Merkel.
    The California death toll is very tiny compared to New York- which has 107 deaths per 100k. That isn’t because the governor of NY is a rabid right winger or because Trump is president of NYC, but not California.
    Lockdowns didn’t have much – but certainly had some – impact on the spread of the virus. The more important factors were density and season. Los Angeles is a personal car-centered transportation network that’s sunny and warm. But in NYC, it was cold and wet so everyone was stuck inside in packed offices, packed subways, packed bars and restaurants, and the elevators of densely packed apartment buildings. And they were in flu and cold season, so they were all hacking, coughing and sneezing on each other anyway.
    Josh won’t like it, but there won’t be any science-based reasons to attack any politicians (if there were, elected officials would be dangling from lampposts throughout the EU today).
    We did learn several things in this pandemic- most of the American media is just genuinely awful. I subscribe to the Washington Post which seems to take pride in publishing the opposite of what I saw Drs. Brix and Fauci say live on television in the briefings the night before.
    The politicization of science is real, and really disgusting. Have you ever in your life seen grown, self-described educated people, actually root for and (prematurely) celebrate the failure of a treatment protocol for a deadly disease just because they think it’s failure would make Trump look bad? What type of person wants that? And don’t tell me they weren’t rooting for the failure of the drug.

  22. Jeff –

    > And don’t tell me they weren’t rooting for the failure of the drug.

    Well, I know I was. It’s my deepest hope that I will die, my friends and family will die, massive numbers of Americans will die, and if I don’t die, that I can continue to be isolated from my family and friends, and continue to not be able to do many of the things I enjoy, just so that can make Trump look bad for a little while before he gets reelected in a landslide

    Hace you been sharing notes with Don, or did you manage to figure this out independently? If so who could have imagined two such insightful people on the same comments section.

    If so, that would be remarkable.

  23. It’s just obvious, joshie. You were supposed to stay away for a week and reflect on what you are doing here.

    • I wonder if there are any studies where participants were screened for likelihood of cardiac complications. As much as randomized controls are needed, I would hope that some such investigations are being conducted.

      • I can tell you never read the VA report that I posted for you education. Didn’t I tell you to look at table 2? You don’t have a clue about this stuff but it doesn’t stop you from yammering.

      • Don –

        Actually, I take that back. Don’t watch the clip of teh Donald recommending people to drink bleach.

        Instead, watch the clips of him claiming that his comments yesterday were sarcasm. That’s actually a much funnier clip – as hard as it is to believe that anything could be funnier than his comments yesterday.

    • Matt

      I’m agnostic on the issue. Just trying to understand.

      “Chloroquine was approved by the FDA in 1949 to treat malaria. Its derivative, hydroxychloroquine, is often used by doctors to treat rheumatoid arthritis and lupus.”

      Is there a difference here which appears inconsistent with use for decades for arthritis and lupus without negative effects?

    • That’s very smart of them. The Manaus “study” has been known for a while and it involved chloroquine, not hydroxychloroquine. And the characters in Manaus obviously overdosed what should have been called the overdose arm. Have you ever been to Manaus? Don’t go.

    • FDA on chloroquine: personally, I don’t trust much that comes from the FDA or WHO or the CDC, all of which are basically sucking at pharma’s teat.

      Just thought I’d throw that in there to piss people off. It’s the way I pass time while in quarantine.

      Yes, there are good people in all those organizations but you don’t get to the top by being an honest broker; you get to the top by being a “team player.” Meaning, you play hard ball with the big boys and you do what you’re told and don’t ask too many questions out loud.

  24. The secret to Germany’s COVID19 success: Angela Merkel is a scientist

    Around 3/4ths of US deaths are in a narrow coastal corridor reaching from DC to Boston. Does the US suffer from a concentration of anti-science in that corridor?

  25. Actually that is the epicenter of anti science. Look at denial of chromosome biology, climate hysteria and the end of snow.
    Scott

  26. Looked through all the articles and I didn’t see any that said we all need live like Vikings, sharing that tiny boat and washing our faces in the same bowl full of snot…

  27. Miami-Dade antibody testing:

    https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article242260406.html

    “UM researchers used statistical methods to account for the limitations of the antibody test, which is known to generate some false positive results. The researchers say they are 95% certain that the true amount of infection lies between 4.4% and 7.9% of the population, with 6% representing the best estimate.

    That would mean about 165,000 estimated infections in Miami-Dade, with the margin of error equating to 123,000 residents on the low end and 221,000 residents on the high end.”

  28. This is very interesting:

    https://fivetran.com/blog/covid-19-count

    “Using CDC data about flu-like illnesses, we estimate that between March 1 and April 4, only 19% of symptomatic COVID-19 patients who visited their doctor were able to get tested. This percentage increased from nearly zero at the beginning of March to 60% at the end. While low, this estimate is consistent with the lack of availability of testing during this period. We used the same data set to study the 2009-2010 H1N1 pandemic, and estimated that of the 61 million Americans who had H1N1, only 14% visited a primary care provider with symptoms. If we assume the same percentage applies to COVID-19, we can estimate that only one in 40 COVID cases were detected between March 1 and April 4, and over 12 million Americans were infected.”

    Their methodology looks sound. See the charts

  29. It’s really simple:

    1) This virus will turn out to be no deadlier than the flu (at worst in the same order of magnitude)

    2) China developed it, and lost control over it

    3) Because CCP knows they made it, they had to over-react

    4) Everyone else followed suit

    5) See #1

    • If you want to go conspiratorial, why not the Russians developed it and released it in Wuhan so the Chinese would get blamed? The Russians don’t need the US markets for their growth like China does and have shown ample interest in the disrupting the US in the past.

  30. Hi Zoe. Nice to see you here again.
    There is a link to the downloadable CDC dataset given at the end of this article
    https://fivetran.com/blog/covid-19-count
    a link that DonM had shown in previous post. Hint.
    I will send a note to your website.

    Also, thank you for your research about geothermal contribution to global warming. I was wondering what would be the vertical temperature profile, from Earth’s center core up to TOA, if the sun did not exist, and what would be the temperature at the Earth’s ground surface then? (So, in that case, the only heat source is the Earth’s core.) Is that calculation already shown in one of your posts on your website?

  31. nobodysknowledge

    Preliminary data shows about 13.9 percent of the population of New York state — about 2.7 million people — have at some point been infected with the coronavirus.
    -By 13th of April?
    -And now 12 days later 21000 deaths, over 24000 in next 6 days? (Fatality peak after 18 days)
    Gives an Infection Fatality Rate of 0,89%
    A study from Germany gave IFR of 0,37%
    What went wrong in New York?
    All doors open for the virus to enter the homes of the most vulnerable?
    How many lives would have been saved with a 3 days earlier lockdown? Or with masks on trains and buses from mid March?

    • nobodysknowledge

      And the fatality rate will be much higher as many COVID-19 deaths are not registered as such. The virus does`t only kill by infecting lungs, but also in many other ways. And it leaves damage to the body that will give many people a premature death.

  32. Mosh posted this comment

    “1 case out of 7000 transmitted outside

    Click to access 2020.04.04.20053058.full.pdf

    To which I replied

    “Thanks for the link

    Which beggars two questions; the first of which is it a good idea to lock people up in their homes to transmit the virus from one person to another, especially when family members may be going out to work or to shop and thereby bringing back the virus to start circulating in the home again?

    Secondly, as so few cases are shown to come from geing outside should we not positively encourage that as being better than staying inside by way of walks, cycling etc thereby also providing exercise and getting vitamin D. Always granting there needs to be some social distancing”

    Tonyb

    • tonyb –

      Those statistics were collected in winter… when people spend the vast amount of their time indoors.

      Most were collected during a massive *lockdown* with soldiers roaming the streets to prevent people from being outside. (The lockdown was imposed on January 23 – but who know how many people were roaming the streets in the midst of a raging pandemic before that?)

      And 34% occurred in transport settings. Gee, I wonder if anyone takes the bus or an Uber to get to the beach or the park? Probably not, tight?

      Oh, and don’t forget, Steven is a big porponent of wearing masks. Hmmm. I see lots of pictures of Chinese and Korean people wearing masks when outdoors. I wonder if, in fact, they’re far more likely to wear masks when outdoors than indoors? What do you think? I wonder if that might contribute to that disparity in the tramission stats?

      I think maybe Steven posted that comment to convince us of the *effectiveness* of lockdowns?

      Oh, also:

      > Many existing buildings are crowded, poorly ventilated, and unhygienic. A comprehensive review of ventilation conditions in Chinese indoor environments by Ye et al. showed that the CO2 concentration can reach 3,500 ppm in some buildings. The design and operation of buildings have also been under pressure to reduce energy use and increase human productivity.

      And don’t forget that Chinese families like to sit down to eat with shared biwkscat the center of the table that they all teach into with chopsticks.

      Point being, yeah, transmission is going to be less likely outdoors. But if it occurs outdoors (whether through touching surfaces, through droplets, or through aerosols), it will contribute to exponential growth. That’s why it makes sense to limit public interaction *until we have testing and contact tracing in place.

      Oh, and maybe it’s problematic to draw conclusions about the dynamics of transmission in one environment from looking at transmission in a completely different environment?

    • tonyb –

      > especially when family members may be going out to work or to shop and thereby bringing back the virus to start circulating in the home again?

      And people will be doing that regardless of the existence of mandated social distancing measures. And in fact, when outside doing those activities they will be in more contact with far more infected people while out in public – so the problem you reference would likely be worse.

    • How easily we get scared. The “black death” plague killed 60% of population of Europe around 1350. This pandemic seems to be killing less than 1% of population. Hysteria is the proper word.

      • That might be because each of us only has one life which is 100% for us.

      • stevenreincarnated

        I like to think of it as a sinking ship. Right now we are putting all the old and sick in the life boats and telling the children to swim to shore through the crushing debt, broken homes, child abuse, and parents lost to the consequences of poverty such as suicide, substance abuse, and crime.

      • Curious George

        James, you are right but more than a little selfish.

    • Also:

      If you want to watch something about Sweden, interview with Swedish epidemiologist

      Basically says everyone’s going to get it either way, so you may as well let that happen with less economic cost. The biggest problems as I see it for *applying to the* US (there are more but these are the biggest). Given that, applying it to the US would have different implications in different parts of the country. That, IMO, is a very key issue.

      1) it assumes that even if you slow spread down, you won’t develop effective treatments and/or a vaccine and/or an effective surveillance system that are effective enough to really prevent basically “herd level” prevalence.

      2) assumes you really can protect the vulnerable. Like you, I doubt that true in Sweden let alone this country .

      3) ignores the disparate impact to higher risk communities, such as minorities. Assumes we have no responsibility to prevent disparate impact because of healthcare disparities.

      4) assumes facts about immunity which may be probable but still unproven. As such, basically avoids dealing with highest impact risk of fast total spread with no immunity.

      5) assumes what would work in Sweden will work in the US.

      6) assumes healthcare system won’t be overwhelmed by fast spread or that at least healthcare system being overwhelmed won’t result in higher fatality rate.

      7) assumes that we don’t have a responsibility to healthcare workers to prevent them from dying or getting sick due to lack of resources, due to faster spread.

      8). Assumes certainty of low fatality rate.

      Now imagine the following scenario: (1) Immunity turns out to not be a best case – either it doesn’t happen or it takes a long time to develop or it doesn’t last very long. (2) in 2 months, someone develops an effective therapeutic that significantly reduces fatality rate.

      Considering that, how much should be bet on the differential economic benefit, and health outcome benefit from things like being less cooped up, from policies based on the idea of potentially letting the virus infect people more quickly and more widely, so as to keep a hobbled economy and national psyche limping along for those 2 months?

      • Jez Josh, You are a perfect picture of fooling yourself. The track record on viral vaccines and antiviral medications is terrible. It took decades to develop effective HIV drugs and there is no vaccine and perhaps never will be. Wishful thinking here is not something I take seriously.

        I love the handwringing about “minorities hardest hit.” If they are poorer, they will be hardest hit by anything. They are hardest hit by murder and gun violence for example.

        There is now a growing body of evidence that IFR’s are 0.12% to 0.5% with the majority in the lower half of that range. There is no high quality dataset showing anything higher. Arguing that this MIGHT be wrong is starting to border on denial.

        I don’t have time to respond to the other 25000 weak points you raise.

      • David –

        President Trump said we might have a vaccine, a very powerful vaccine, a beautiful vaccine, a sting vaccine, in a matter of a few months. Faster than ever before.

        Do you mean he want exactly being factual?

        I’m crushed.

  33. Ireneusz Palmowski

    April 25 (GMT)
    4913 new cases and 813 new deaths in the United Kingdom

  34. DATE NEW CASES INCREASE % # TESTS
    4/17/2020 31,790 -3,068 -55 148,690
    4/18/2020 29,564 -2,226 -7 168,397
    4/19/2020 27,354 -2,210 -7.4 139,511
    4/20/2020 28,249 895 3.2 183,117
    4/21/2020 32,037 3,788 13.4 138,451
    4/22/2020 19,554 -12,483 -38.9 143,549
    4/23/2020 32,124 12,570 64.2 158,486
    4/24/2020 39,887 7,763 24.1 465,986
    4/25/2020 36,342 -3,545 -8.8 251,263
    Governer Cuomo said tests opening up to all.
    Hopefully we will stop treading water.

  35. Donald Trump is the target of mockery for his suggestion that bleach might work as well in vivo as in vitro. But it reminded me of something. As a kid I had an oral infection, and was advised to gargle and rinse my mouth out with hydrogen peroxide, the usual 3% OTC solution, not full strength. Given what has been published about SARS CoV-2 reproducing in the throat, this might be good advice to reduce its spread.

    • Send it in to the White House. Maybe the big guy will use it in his next show.

    • “Donald Trump is the target of mockery for his suggestion that bleach might work as well in vivo as in vitro.”

      matthewrmarler, I’m disappointed. Please show me the Trump quote where he suggests this use of bleach.

      • jungletrunks: matthewrmarler, I’m disappointed. Please show me the Trump quote where he suggests this use of bleach.

        you missed my word “might”. He did not “suggest this use” of the bleach.

        Francois Riverin, thank you for the transcript: Trump: And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that so that you’re going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me.

        As you can see, turning it from a question to a suggestion is inappropriate, but the “might work as well in vivo as in vitro” is applicable, I think. Don’t forget how ECMO and dialysis work; part of the technique of ECMO is not to “inject” too much oxygen. As with hydroxychloroquine and ketamine, too high a “dose” is dangerous.

        I have read some funny and clever cartoons and quips at Donald’s expense based on misquotations of what he said. I basically am aligned with Pres Trump on this issue; it would be nice if you could find a way to make this work in vivo. But I still think the jokes are funny.

      • jungletrunks

        I didn’t miss your suggestion that he “might”, because there wasn’t an implication that Trump might have meant bleach.

        The quote provided to you is only partial context; there’s a reference where Trump defers to the medical community on the subject; are you aware he directed his query to the medical community?

        This is all ankle biting stuff.

        You’re actually more relevant in your hydrogen peroxide sidebar, which is essentially where Trump was going, but without naming any product.

      • I can’t believe his staff didn’t have a damage control meeting immediately after that incident. I watched it live. My wife, who hates Trump, was having a conniption. There were statements made by him and others that made me feel they were talking past each other. It was unclear to me what he was trying to say and which treatment he was talking about. The line of thought and statements were incoherent.

        He could have defused this whole thing by saying he had used wrong terminology and misunderstood what he had heard before the conference and that he shouldn’t have said what he said. By trying to excuse it as sarcasm just dug his hole further. When you FU, admit to it. Over the last 60 years how many politicians could have gotten out of a jam by just admitting they screwed up.

        At times he doesn’t know when to shut up. Even his most ardent supporters, who want what is best for him, know he doesn’t always have the best instincts. His kids should have intervened and said “Dad, listen to us, here is how you explain it away. You got confused about which treatment you were talking about and which was internal and which was external, etc etc.. You could say you had a Biden moment.” When you’re in a hole, don’t keep digging l

        The clowns at CNN etc are having a field day. The only saving grace may be that Biden is going to be in even bigger trouble because of bombshell allegations just surfacing that even Democratic insiders are struggling with. The Biden troubles aren’t going away. It’s time for the MeTooMovement to show they aren’t the worst hypocrites on the face of the earth, and demand accountability.

      • jungletrunks

        cerescokid, If the question is, was Trump’s stream of conscience better left unsaid? Yes, it was awkward, he channeled a new report describing the vulnerabilities of the virus to certain conditions, on the fly. I’m not making an excuse, it wasn’t sarcasm as Trump tried to spin it. But it wasn’t bleach either, as the haters spin it, not even a hint of bleach. I know where his head was; he could have thought it, but not spoke it without creating an embarrassing situation for himself.

      • jungletrunks: there’s a reference where Trump defers to the medical community on the subject; are you aware he directed his query to the medical community?

        Yes. I wrote it to a friend of mine who posts on FaceBook. I thought I had written it here as well.

      • jungletrunks: I know where his head was; he could have thought it, but not spoke it without creating an embarrassing situation for himself.

        I am sorry I brought it up in the language that I used, but watching the video I thought he sounded natural, humane, and enthusiastic. When I did pharmacokinetics for a drug company sometimes the biologists would bring info on a new compound and ask something like: This is great in our aassay, do you think it will work if we inject it? Most stuff doesn’t, but if it weren’t for the optimistic, enthusiastic support of a few proponents, nothing would ever make it into clinical trials, much less to where people can buy it.

      • Does anyone have a link to the Trump interview? I heard only parts of it so would like to view it in full context before passing judgement.

        It was said here by JT ;

        “If the question is, was Trump’s stream of conscience better left unsaid”

        That is at the same time Trumps weakness and his strength. He bypasses the news outlets by using twitter, but often seems to shoot wildly from the hip. He would surely be better collecting his thoughts and scripting his main ideas rather than just randomly articulating them, as he does get out of his depth sometimes. He seems much better at Rallies.

        He is very fortunate that the best that the rich and supposedly ultra professional Democratic party can manage is such a poor candidate as Biden who, from this side of the Atlantic, has got ‘loser’ stamped all over him.

        The democrats know who they have to beat and his strengths and weaknesses so how on earth did they manage to come up with such a weak candidate as Biden?

        tonyb

      • He said disinfectant but you guys are really struggling to put any positive spin on this. He is profoundly ignorant of basic science and civics and, if that were not bad enough, he doesn’t know how ignorant he is which makes him dangerous. Putting light and disinfectant in the body to kill the virus is really not much different than the hydroxychloroquine disaster but, at least with hydroxychloroquine nobody could rush out to the grocery store to buy it as they can with bleach or Lysol. Fortunately most people (even children) know better than to drink or inject a disinfectant.

      • jungletrunks

        Tony, this is the press conference discussing this issue:

      • jungletrunks

        sorry, hit the wrong key:

        Tony, this is the press conference discussing this issue

      • jungletrunks

        Tony, I agree with your thoughts about Trump’s propensity for stream of conscience “That is at the same time Trumps weakness and his strength.”

        This characteristic is among the traits that literally make Trump the most transparent U.S. president there’s ever been. So while he’s very open with his “shoot from the hip” thoughts, he also challenges his own ideas, all ideas actually, with competing thoughts before he acts; through business leaders; cabinet personnel, et al. So while his instinct for uninhibited thought is a weakness and strength, his instincts for landing on the right side for actions are very strong, and often bold. Of course the other side will say different, let the violins play.

        In most instances his stream of conscience specifically is an exploitable political weakness by the press rather than the public who generally get it unless they’re driven by extreme prejudice. Trump wasn’t a “made” politician, this is also a strength and weakness. When you look at most controversies stemming from his thoughts, in their full context; they’re almost entirely political faux pas that his enemies are able to propagandize; this will happen in a heartbeat. Coming full circle, this is why Trump was elected; too much corruption; too much lack of transparency; too much money buying favor; too much of the bad kind of quid pro quo in governance all around.

        James Cross; Most of societies worse fears coming true would grow out of your civics heroes running things, given enough time. No need to even have dumpsters when there’s no production refuse to throw in them; ask a Venezuelan if that is not true. Given enough free reign society would have New Green Deal type nonsense galore. Marxist excellence coming from the new breed of radical, AOC types. She’s smart btw; she has an economics degree, and knows how to get people drunk, she’s been trained well.

      • Matthew R Marler

        comment by Babylon Bee. Note the writer catches both Trump’s off-hand supercilious style of “stream of consciousness”, AND Radow’s absurd misquote and overreaction:

        https://babylonbee.com/news/trump-says-to-drink-lots-of-water-media-reports-as-deranged-trump-tells-everyone-to-drown-themselves?utm_content=buffer4657f&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer&fbclid=IwAR1E1u5CQJDj0zjQXQZNusjrWI9eXSd

      • jungletrunks

        Matthew R Marler, thanks for that. In normal circumstances the link would be called a parody, maybe. I saw the bleach accusation on ABC News prime time, there was probably a similar take on all major networks; maybe NBC News should consider doing a “real” news segment on Saturday Night Live, reality riffing is sometimes indistinguishable from comedy these days.

    • François Riverin

      I think Trump never said such a thing as to drink toxic products. Here is the full transcript. Context and quote around minutes 25 https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-coronavirus-press-conference-transcript-april-23?fbclid=IwAR2U9Oa_mcyunfJ5-8in5mC7jPfjvwWCM-rVl26VXcVMKGQ2pv33A8smEBc

      • Francois

        Thanks for the link. Its not the same as a video as there are obviously asides and looks being exchanged.

        However, surely the key part is from Bill Ryan at 28.34? I have no idea who this guy is, whether politician or scientist, but it is he who seems to make the comment about light and disinfectants.

        Trump takes up the point at 29.46 and it seems to me he is out of his depth and perhaps glances over to someone (Ryan?) for confirmation. So the context is not fully clear , but Trump does not seem to be the instigator about light/disinfectant but we then have one of his famous streams of consciousness, which are not always useful

        It did not hep that the next day he claimed he was being sarcastic. He clearly wasn’t. He might have misunderstood Ryan’s comments or over simplified them, but he certainly wasn’t being sarcastic. I would still like to see the video if anyone can provide a link

        tonyb

        .

      • Tony

        You are correct on all counts. I’ve thought more about my previous comment here. His staff is paid to keep him out of trouble, especially given his predilection to wade into areas he has no business in. They need to keep him in his own lane. Those closest to him should have marched him into the Oval Office, gotten a copy of the tape, run it over and over again and at each sentence and at each word asked him “what were you visualizing when you said this? Where did you get that idea?” With him watching each word he said, they should have asked him if he said on tape what he thought he had said. After they went through each sentence and each word then they could see if he actually said what he meant to say and if he was confused and misinterpreted previous briefings then they should have prepared him to say that. However, if he meant every word and understood what he was saying then they should have explained to him the science and why it was wrong. And then they should have coached him how to handle every possible question by the press about those comments he made. How could they think it wasn’t coming up the next day. You are right, the context was not clear. I didn’t know which previous statements he was addressing. He knows the press is looking for every possible slip up. His staff knows it as well. They botched it.

        Then the question is why didn’t his staff do what was needed to be done. Are they afraid to confront him? If so, that is on him. I just read an article about Kim’s possible death. One account, highly speculative, is that a simple heart procedure went wrong when the surgeon was trembling so much he messed it up. This probably is wrong. But here is the point. If that surgeon was so terrified of making a mistake because he feared being executed with an anti aircraft gun, whose fault is that? It’s on Kim. If Trump’s staff is so terrified by him they don’t do their job, that is on him.

      • Ceresco kid

        I think it would be useful if his advisers felt able to point to problems in his ‘performance’. Perhaps they don’t dare. I think it would be very useful if there was an automatic 24 hour delay on his outgoing twitter feed which would help him to decide if he REALLY meant to say something or was shooting from the hip.

        tonyb

      • I think Trump is smart enough to put most of us in the shade. That is why when he makes a slipup we experience shadenfreude.

      • Jungle trunks and Ceresco kid

        Ok, I have now watched the video from 22 minutes to 32 minutes. The timings on the video are slightly different to the timings on the transcript supplied by Francois.

        Firstly, I thought Trump hosted the event better than I expected. Secondly the question of bleach and disinfectant was introduced by Ryan at 25.30 minutes then again at 26 minutes

        Trump then came back in and was obviously expressing random thoughts and ideas from the presentation. I got the impression he hadn’t seen the script for Ryan or perhaps Ryan was just talking off the cuff.

        Anyway, Trumps first mention of Disinfectant was at 27.10 when he clearly looked several times at Ryan as he was expressing his thoughts and deferring to him. Ryan then answered a few questions and Trump came in again around 31 minutes to again express a thought on disinfectant and again looked at Ryan for guidance.

        As I have said before Trump does have this stream of consciousness which we see at press conferences and especially on Twitter. (I didn’t watch beyond 32 mins in)

        In this instance Trump was clearly articulating a thought and looking for confirmation or otherwise from his scientific adviser.

        The extreme media reaction seems over excessive in this instance. Trump expressed some thoughts he might have been better to have run past his advisers first, but nowhere does he actually encourage people to inject themselves, it is all part of his thoughts to which he was continually looking to Ryan for confirmation or otherwise.

        It very clearly wasn’t ‘sarcasm’ so it surely would have been best for Trump to have admitted he was merely expressing a few thoughts and ideas and would take guidance from his advisers. I understand he then walked out of the next press conference which seems very foolish.

        Trump is mercurial and really needs to confer more with his advisers and stop shooting from the hip and learn from his mistakes. . On the other hand he has recognised the threats from China N Korea and Iran which his predecessor failed to. So 6 out of 10. Obama got 5. Biden has yet to register a score.

        tonyb

      • pochas

        “Trump is smart enough”

        We’ve had a tradition for generations, mainly by the leftwing press, to call Republican Presidents stupid or dumb, etc. My experience goes back to Eisenhower. There was a constant knock on him about his lack of brains. Perhaps due to his occasional syntax problem. He graduated 1 of 275 in General and Staff College, was the most sought after Field Grade Officer by Generals, was known for his incisive thinking , was called the smartest guy in the room by other officials and had the confidence of FDR, Churchill and Marshall. Thick he wasn’t.

        The same thing has been said about his Republican successors. That and being a raci-st. But decades later, the press sings their praises and longs for the good old days since the current incumbent, whoever it is, is so much worse than the guy they savaged generations ago. Tedious.

        Reagan still gets blamed for the movement of deinstitutionalization of the mentality ill. Never mind that community mental health facilities started in the 1950s with JFK supporting legislation to expand them and LBJ changing Medicaid rules to further the direction and Carter signing even more legislation that supported community based facilities. But when Reagan put the funding for mental health hospitals into block grants for the states to distribute, it was his fault and his alone.

      • Matthew R Marler

        tonyb: Trump is mercurial and really needs to confer more with his advisers and stop shooting from the hip and learn from his mistakes. .

        Boy! Don’t we all wish that! But he is what he is, and I am not expecting him to change.

        What he has going for him is that so many of his critics overreact, and are more absurd than he is.

      • tony,

        Trump makes a lot of unforced errors. Generally they are in situations where he makes off the cuff remarks that are sometimes just dumb, at other times harmless but they are twisted by the media, who hate him at the rate of about 95%. Have you ever had a leader in Britain who got 95% negative press coverage? Or one that had the country’s top law enforcement agency and the intelligence community bosses out to hang him?

        The Big Orange Fella has been under constant bombardment, since well before he was elected. When he fights back, they say he is “attacking”, whichever weasel had first attacked him. Despite all that he had accomplished what that idiot Obama said would have to be done with magic wand.

        My advice to our POTUS would be, just put your head down and manage the country. Let your crew handle the fight with the Democrats, the Democrat owned press, the low level low information agitator joshies, the uneducated Hollyweird left loon celebs, et al.

        His campaign pitch should be: You saw what I did with the economy, with re-setting our terrible trade relationships, controlling our borders, peace through firepower, and so on and so on. If you think that senile old sleepy Joe can do better with all of that and a pandemic, take your chances and give him a shot. I never needed this job. I’ll get on one of my jets and go back to a very comfortable life.

  36. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Pressure drop and next atmospheric fronts will not reduce deaths in the northeast of the US.

  37. Why lockdowns are the wrong policy:

    • Questions for anyone who wants to apply what that epidemiologist says to vastly different countries like the US:

      1) it assumes that even if you slow spread down, you won’t develop effective treatments and/or a vaccine and/or an effective surveillance system that are effective enough to really prevent basically “herd level” prevalence.

      2) assumes you really can protect the vulnerable. I doubt that true in Sweden let alone this country .

      3) ignores the disparate impact to higher risk communities, such as minorities. Assumes we have no responsibility to prevent disparate impact because of healthcare disparities.

      4) assumes facts about immunity which may be probable but still unproven. As such, basically avoids dealing with highest impact risk of fast total spread with no immunity.

      5) assumes what would work in Sweden will work in the US.

      6) assumes healthcare system won’t be overwhelmed by fast spread or that at least healthcare system being overwhelmed won’t result in higher fatality rate.

      7) assumes that we don’t have a responsibility to healthcare workers to prevent them from dying or getting sick due to lack of resources, due to faster spread.

      8). Assumes certainty of low fatality rate.

  38. Other than age,
    metabolic syndrome is the greatest risk factor for one infected with CV19.

    Perhaps more importantly, having metabolic syndrome prevents vaccines from being effective.

  39. Go ahead. I dare you not to laugh. Even tempers will laugh.

  40. Maybe not quite as funny? But you’re still going to laugh. I guarantee it.

  41. Brainstorming. That is what competent people do when confronted with a problem they haven’t been able to solve by applying their collective expertise and are searching for new/novel ideas. Caution. Don’t do it in the presence of people who hate you, particularly when they can spin it to a gullible audience.

    If anyone still wonders why CO2 does not now, never has, and never will have a significant effect on climate, click my name.

    • You are correct about the water vapior controlling the average temperature, of the surface ofm the earth. You are wrong about the direction of the temperature.It is keeping the average temperature of the earth from over cooling. The oceans are reflecting radient heat to the black sky more than it is absobing by the land mass. The Ice shelf is breakig off and melting. Nature is taking the melted ice to Arctic, dropping it in the form of frozen water to maintain a constant surface temperature. It is building up on the land mass in the very northern hemesphere.

  42. The UV light, used internally as a disinfect:

    • Don –

      Hit it with a big light. A very strong light. A powerful light. A beautiful light. An amazing light. A beautiful light.

      A very powerful, strong, beautiful light

      It will disappear. Like a miracle.

      Oh, wait.

      You forget. He explained that he was being sarcastic. You you. know, just to mess with the press.

      Did you forget that?

      Well, at least he fooled some people , eh? Lol.

    • Is there something incorrect about my comment, joshie? You have zero integrity and even less sense.

  43. Judith, Your currently featured tweet is a reference to a Financial Times estimate that seems to essentially assign all excess mortality in the UK to Covid19. That’s highly debatable. The Times of London had an article in which they interviewed a number of experts who mentioned that it could be due partly to people too scared to do routine medical care, medications, or otherwise contact the health care system when they had an emergency situation. Not to mention increased suicides and substance abuse.

  44. “As the U.S. struggles to track coronavirus fatalities amid spotty testing, delayed lab results and inconsistent reporting standards, a more insidious problem could thwart its quest for an accurate death toll.

    Up to 1 in 3 death certificates nationwide were already wrong before COVID-19, said Bob Anderson, chief of the mortality statistics branch at the National Center for Health Statistics in an interview with the USA TODAY Network.”

  45. Click to access 264_CORONA-5G-d.pdf

    statisics? concern for the human immune system? collateral damage of technocracy? We were warned but ‘the crowd’ continues to enforce the ban on what you’re not allowed to question…


    https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/s7922
    https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/2881
    https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000041755887&categorieLien=id
    Please convert your ‘tin hat’ comments to intelligent analysis directed at the concerned scientists…

  46. UK-Weather Lass-In-Earnest

    Where are the reliable test kits for presence of virus and presence of antibodies, properly managed testing regimes, and when are we going to have reliable data about SARS-CoV-2? Are governments seriously thinking the lockdowns have been/will be successful without them?

  47. One other thought, since I am on a role, we were saving about $500 billion a year by buying made in China. Now that is costing our offspring over $2 trillion over the next, only God knows, many years, to clear that debt.

  48. I keep waiting for India and Africa to show signs of an acceleration in deaths. One forecast for Africa was 300,000 deaths.

    Both at 1.3 Billion + population and the death rate per million is 0.6 for India and 0.9 for Africa.

  49. From the ‘news’ these days one hears many references to COVID models and testing, but scant discussion as to their mutual relevance. We receive daily reports of ‘new’ positives and sometimes negatives. But, what modelers would prefer knowing is how many of these ‘new’ positives were negatives yesterday, and v.v. for ‘new’ negatives. Hospital data on admissions and discharges might offer a better proxy, but I haven’t discovered such in the public domain.

    The reason for this interest is that I’ve been learning the mathematics of epidemiological modeling. The basics are a sophomoric set of first-order differential equations easily handled by spreadsheet differences. The basic model involves only two parameters – one determining the ordinates of a bell curve, the other its temporal scaling. A third parameter can simulate special cases, e.g. social distancing, loss of immunity, incubation. My current norm is a 10-day infectious period over which 4 new infections occur. (A Chinese analysis of Wuhan data suggests 5 infections per 6 days.) These values imply that, sans vaccine, 98% of the population inevitably becomes infected, regardless of a social hiatus, etc.

    Those of a similar curiosity may find these notes useful,

    Click to access SIR_Equations.pdf

  50. “Late last month, Vice President Mike Pence sent a letter to administrators of the nation’s 6,000 hospitals requesting a favor.”

    “The lack of available data raises questions about the federal government’s $35 billion investment in electronic health records a decade ago, Jha and others say. The shift from paper to digital records was supposed to allow the health care system to be more nimble and provide information more quickly.

    “If that’s not happening, that’s a huge failure of the system,” he said.

    What a pathetic situation. Having to request data in the same way that would have been done 150 years ago. What happened to the $35 Billion.

    https://www.propublica.org/article/we-still-dont-know-how-many-people-are-in-the-hospital-with-covid-19

  51. NYC Population 8.5 M. Deaths 12,097. Case/Deaths 7.6%
    Detroit Population .7M. Deaths. 922. Case/Deaths 10.7%
    Orange County CA. 3.2 M. Deaths 39. Case/Deaths. 1.9%
    Los Angeles County. 10.1 M. Deaths 913. Case/Deaths. 4.7%

    • Population
      California 40 Million 1776 Deaths
      Texas. 29.9 Million. 672 Deaths
      Florida. 21.5 Million. 1088 Deaths

      NYC. 8.5 Million. 12,097 Deaths
      Detroit. 700,000 922. Deaths

  52. Tale of two panics — Covid & Climate
    By David Wojick
    https://www.cfact.org/2020/04/27/tale-of-two-panics-covid-climate/

    While they are occurring on vastly different time scales, the Covid-19 panic and the climate change panic are remarkably similar. Perhaps there are certain basic social panic mechanisms that always occur, which are yet to be discovered. Yet in any case the striking similarities between these two are worth exploring a bit.

    To begin with, each panic began with runaway computer models. In the Covid case the U.S. death count was projected to be around 2,000,000, clearly calling for draconian government action, which soon followed. That number now stands at about 60,000, about the same as a bad flu year, but the damage is well underway.

    Claims that the ruinous actions brought the numbers down are belied by the countries that fared just as well without them. Nor do we know what made the model so “hot” as it has not been analyzed, or even properly documented and released for analysis.

    In the climate case the hot models take a benign increase in atmospheric CO2 and turn it into a coming catastrophe. We actually know how they do this using massive (and purely speculative) positive feedbacks from water vapor and clouds. That these models have clearly been falsified by observation is ignored by their masters.

    In both cases the speculative terror to come was heartily embraced by the mainstream media, accompanied by relentless cries for action. Predictably the public responded with fear, giving the government ample room for action.

    In both cases the result has been mandates for economically destructive abstinence. In the Covid case the mandate is to hide thy self away. Don’t go out, don’t go to work, don’t go to school. That the economy is rapidly collapsing is no surprise.

    In the climate case the mandate is to stop using our primary source of energy — fossil fuels. Don’t drive. Don’t fly. Don’t eat meat. Build millions of windmills and solar collectors. Commit to zero carbon suicide. That the economy is slowly collapsing is no surprise. Energy prices rise and rise.

    In both cases the ridiculous bandaid that is applied to catastrophic collapse is a so-called “stimulus”. Millions are out of work so they get just over a thousand dollars. Windmills and solar panels do not work as needed so they get subsidies. And still the government feeds the fear.

    What is really needed in both cases is freedom and reality. Freedom from computer driven fear, freedom from fear driven mandates, and the reality that the problem being solved by collapse never existed in the first place.

    These are both panics, pure and simple. Recovery will not be easy because fear, once begun, is long lasting. Children were already having nightmares fueled by climate fear, now they are afraid to go outside and play. In both cases the worst may be yet to come because the fear mongers are relentless.

    Still we will wallow out of this pit, despite the governments that put us into it.

    The bigger challenge is how to prevent catastrophic panics in future? In communication science this sort of thing is called a “cascade”. The model results trigger the press, who trigger the people, who trigger the government.

    Each step is an amplifier, whereby a hot model hurts hundreds of millions of people. Maybe the model is the place to start. Perhaps presenting catastrophic conjectures as established facts should be punishable, so people do not do it.

    Giving a false alarm that causes great harm is wrong. Calling the false alarm science does not change this fact. If anything it makes it worse. Scientists are supposed to be very careful about their claims.

    Of course we also need to fight the virus, but medically not socially. We also need a workable virus prevention and protection system, especially one that prevents panic. A good way to fund this system is by redirecting money slated for foolishly fighting CO2.

    See my https://clintel.org/fight-virus-not-carbon/.

    End

    • Interesting that Trump rejects the science produced by climate models yet embraces the science produced by epidemiological models.

      Also interesting that the climate “skeptic” community applauds Trump’s rejection of the science of climate, and blames “the media” for significant public acceptance of that modeling, yet remains largely silent about Trump’s acceptance of epidemiological modeling even as it blames “the media” for significant public acceptance of epidemiological modeling.

      Maybe as interesting are the parallels, are the differences?

      • J
        You don’t really want me to cite all the reasons that someone ought to be just a little skeptical about CAGW do you? Given all the evidence, I don’t know how anyone could go all in on the hysteria that has been drummed up. On the other side, we see cases and deaths validating some of the COVID19 models, in real time. Not all, of course. It appears the 2.2 million deaths in the US is a tad too high. Sort of like the 10 feet sea level rise in several decades prediction by EPA. Let’s see, how many inches has it actually risen over the 40 years? Some models are shown to be wrong in a few weeks. Other kinds of models have to wait a few decades to be shown wrong.

        Do you see the difference, J?

    • David

      Regarding the climate, GCM’s have thus far demonstrated such poor accuracy in matching observed conditions that conclusions based on their long term data seem pointless.

      Regarding Covid 19, the models regarding the death rate in the USA have been reasonably accurate. Why do you suggest they should be ignored?

      • David Wojick

        The original estimates of over two million were hardly accurate.

      • David –

        The original “estimates” of over two million were hardly accurate.

        What estimates of over 2 million?

        Do you mean the worst case projections, as described here?

        > In their worst-case scenario, which assumed a reproduction number of 2.6 and “the (unlikely) absence of any control measures or spontaneous changes in individual behaviour,” they projected 550,000 deaths in the U.K. and 2.2 million in the United States. Although those horrifying numbers got a lot of attention, they were never plausible, as the paper itself said, because they were based on the clearly unrealistic premise that “nothing” is done to contain, suppress, or mitigate the epidemic.

        In Ferguson et al.’s best-case scenario—based on a reproduction number of 2 and isolation of people with symptoms, home quarantine of everyone else in their households, and early implementation of school closures, coupled with “social distancing of [the] entire population”—they projected just 5,600 deaths in the U.K. But when they raised the reproduction number from 2 to 2.6, the number of deaths more than doubled. They projected 12,000 deaths in that scenario.

        If you’re going to spin like that, what gives you credibility?

        Respect the uncertainty, please. That’s what people are supposed to do on a “skeptic” blog!

      • Joshua, What you are illustrating is that these models are very sensitive to the assumptions and are not very valuable in terms of predicting what will or did actually happens. The massive effect given to lockdowns doesn’t seem to be borne out by the data as Sweden has a lower death rate than the UK by quite a margin.

        Similarly in the US, those states that did almost nothing have had very low deaths. Those that locked down early have had mixed outcomes. New York is the worst of course. St. Andrew the Pious seems to have minimized the epidemic and then gone into full on panic mode..
        https://www.wsj.com/articles/do-lockdowns-save-many-lives-is-most-places-the-data-say-no-11587930911?mod=hp_opin_pos_1

        My view is that this epidemic has revealed how many flaws epidemiology has in common with climate science. It’s not their fault. The subject matter is just almost impossible to model these very very complex phenomena.

      • David –

        Send Trump a letter. He tells us Ina daily basis thst if he weren’t such a stable genius 2.2 million Americans would have died.

        > and are not very valuable in terms of predicting what will or did actually happens.

        What is it about the difference between a prediction and a projection that’s such a difficult concept for you?

        Yes the Imperial College had some 750 parameters, and yes there was a lot of uncertainty for many of them. If you don’t like that, you can go with the IHME model and go with curve fitting. That’s the way the cookie crumbles. If you’d rather just careen wildly without predictions, that’s yiuebiotiknss well, but our fearless stable genius chose a different option.

        But what kills me is when people who call themselves “skeptics” ignore the stated uncertainties in modeling they don’t like even as they hide behind uncertainty. Just it kills me that rhwy hide behind the indersinries in modeling even as they ignore the uncertainties in the modeling they’d prefer.

        Do you think the Swedes aren’t relying on modeling?

        And please, stop with the relying on comparisons across countries without controlling for explanatory variables. We could find comparisons to prove whatever we want in that fashion. I offered a comparison above between Finland and Sweden of the exact same sort, to pint out the futility of that kind of ideological bias-confirming exercise. Try using New Zealand as your point of comparison and see how far that gets you. You’ll be pointing to uncontrolled variables in a heartbeat.to explain why the comparison isn’t valid.

      • Well, Josh, Sweden is in the middle of the European pack. Pretty hard to claim that lockdowns produce a better outcome.

        The rest of your comment does not deserve a response its so non-specific except to repeat that crisis skeptics have been proven virtually entirely correct despite the nipping at the heels by anonymous and almost totally incorrect internet personas.

      • Joshua: https://www.google.com/amp/s/reason.com/2020/03/27/no-british-epidemiologist-neil-ferguson-has-not-drastically-downgraded-his-worst-case-projection-of-covid-19-deaths/%3famp

        When exactly did anyone accurately model the dramatic difference between the US northern Eastern Seaboard (DC to Boston) and the rest of the US (CA, AZ, NM, TX, MS, AL, FL)? Note, I omitted New Orleans because it is dramatically different from most of the rest of LA, and held a riotous Mardi Gras celebration. Even NOLA did not turn out like the NYC area.

        We had advocates of a nation-wide policy based on models that took no account of the geographic and cultural variation within the US. And models that ignored differences around the world. We still have people claiming that CA and FL will become like the NYC region, while the evidence accumulates that such will not happen.

      • Our man j thinks his comments are thought provoking, but they are just provoking.

      • Matthew –

        > We had advocates of a nation-wide policy based on models that took no account of the geographic and cultural variation within the US. And models that ignored differences around the world. We still have people claiming that CA and FL will become like the NYC region, while the evidence accumulates that such will not happen.

        Trump likes to hide behind the 2 million figure, but the administration’s policies were also based on the IMHE modeling. My understanding is that the IMHE modeling was curve fitting to outcomes in other countries adapted to mireocsmized conditions. Correct me if I’m wrong about that please.

        The Imperial College modeling, to my understanding was based on some 750 parameters. I’d guess some them were adapted to regions to some extent. Correct me if I’m wrong please.

    • David Wojick said: “In communication science this sort of thing is called a “cascade”. The model results trigger the press, who trigger the people, who trigger the government.”

      The models ( “science”) triggers the press….
      So, who triggers the “science”? Consider who benefits. Who decides to skip the normal procedures and quality assurance (hypothesis testing, peer review, etc.) in order to produce or to use bogus but profitable science?

      Commonality — For both issues (CO2 and Covid), no one has bothered to test the basic hypothesis.

      CO2 — Does increasing CO2 cause warming? No funding agency every called for proposals to test the hypothesis.

      Covid — Was there actually a spreading Covid epidemic during March? Everyone assumes it is so obvious that no hypothesis test is needed? But maybe the assumption is wrong. Do you think that it is OK to hand wave and skip doing a formal hypothesis test for an assumption of this importance? Some researchers have noted that the increasing #cases during March was mostly (or maybe entirely) an artifact of the increasing number of tests each day, meaning no actual increasing epidemic. Why was there no formal hypothesis test, done by CDC?

      Hot Model — For the earlier post re: Six questions to ask Neil Ferguson, there should be a 7th question about the early epidemic growth rate that he used for the model, and how he derived that. Did he account for the bias in the epidemic curve due to increasing testing, or if not, is that why the model “ran hot”? What does Nic Lewis say about that?
      —————————-

    • “That number now stands at about 60,000, about the same as a bad flu year, but the damage is well underway”.

      Right. We’re are barely two months into worldwide spread and you are already declaring we shouldn’t be over concerned. We don’t know exactly how bad it could be.

      • Two months in after mandated social distancing in many parts of the country, and daily pleadings from the president to stay indoors.

      • We do have a very good idea how bad it could based on the Miami Dade test results. IFR between 0.12% and 0.23%. If everyone is infected that’s 390K to 690K fatalities. 2/3 would have died in the next year because they were already seriously ill. Excess moertality is then 130K to 230K or about 4-8% excess mortality. Doubling that to account for Miami Dade deaths over the next 14 days and you get 8%-16% excess mortality. A large number, but not worse than past pandemics like the Hong Kong Flu.

        With respect you should pay attention to the latest science and stop reading in the media who are shameless scare mongers.

      • You still don’t get how bad it is to do your extrapolations.

        In the Miami testing (from someone actually smart in another blog).:

        ********

        > Our data from this week and last tell a very similar story. In both weeks, 6% of participants tested positive for COVID-19 antibodies, which equates to 165,000 Miami-Dade County residents.

        I find it highly suspicious that in Miami-Dade their antibody prevalence estimates are flat, but they’ve been reporting roughly the same number of new cases for the last few weeks. How could their cumulative case count be flat when their new cases have been rising?

        > The test kits were made by BioMedomics

        https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article241750556.html

        This test has somewhere between a 13.08% (!!!) and a 3.74% FPR depending on testing mode, and that’s not including confidence intervals.

        *****

        Maybe you should wait until we have reliable data and well done studies. That you think you know the IFR with that level of certainty at this point is just ridiculous.

        And even if you did, that level of fatality has vast different implications based on the attack rate and level of infectiousness.

        Comparing to the flu isn’t instructive because of vaccines and because the commonly referenced flu IFR is based on identified symptomatic people. If it were based on everyone who had mild or unnoticed symptoms (like “I thought I had a bad cold but didn’t go to the doctor”) which is what the “It’s just like the flu” crowd is doing with COVID, it would be much lower than the typically referenced 0.1%

  53. more testing results for NY State:https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2020/04/27/coronavirus-antibodies-present-in-nearly-25-of-all-nyc-residents/

    Sample size up to 7500. More testing underway and more planned.

  54. nobodysknowledge

    From the link: https://quillette.com/2020/04/23/covid-19-superspreader-events-in-28-countries-critical-patterns-and-lessons/
    COVID-19 Superspreader Events in 28 Countries: Critical Patterns and Lessons. Written by Jonathan Kay

    “In fact, the truly remarkable trend that jumped off my spreadsheet has nothing to do with the sort of people involved in these SSEs, but rather the extraordinarily narrow range of underlying activities.
    It’s worth scanning all the myriad forms of common human activity that aren’t represented among these listed SSEs: watching movies in a theater, being on a train or bus, attending theater, opera, or symphony (these latter activities may seem like rarified examples, but they are important once you take stock of all those wealthy infectees who got sick in March, and consider that New York City is a major COVID-19 hot spot). These are activities where people often find themselves surrounded by strangers in densely packed rooms—as with all those above-described SSEs—but, crucially, where attendees also are expected to sit still and talk in hushed tones.
    The world’s untold thousands of white-collar cubicle farms don’t seem to be generating abundant COVID-19 SSEs—despite the uneven quality of ventilation one finds in global workplaces. This category includes call centers (many of which are still operating), places where millions of people around the world literally talk for a living. (Addendum: there are at least two examples of call-centre-based clusters, both of which were indicated to me by readers after the original version of this article appeared—one in South Korea, which overlaps with the massive Shincheonji Church of Jesus cluster; and the other in Jamaica.)
    In New Zealand, one SSE centered on students at a girls’ school. Given the exuberant and socially intimate way in which children laugh, argue and gossip, I am surprised there are not more schools on my list. Moreover, I had trouble finding any SSEs that originated in university classrooms, which one would expect to be massive engines of infection if COVID-19 could be transmitted easily through airborne small-droplet diffusion.
    It’s similarly notable that airplanes don’t seem to be common sites for known SSEs, notwithstanding the sardine-like manner in which airlines transport us and the ample opportunity that the industry’s bureaucracy offers for contact tracing. 

    If fomites were a major pathway for COVID-19 infection outside of hospitals, old-age residences, and homes, one would expect restaurant cooks, mass-transit ticket handlers, and FedEx delivery workers to be at the center of major clusters. They’re not. If small-droplet airborne concentrations in unventilated spaces were a common vector for COVID-19 transmission (as with measles, for instance), one would expect whole office buildings to become mass-infection hot spots. That doesn’t seem to have happened.

    One critical factor in all this is that we still have no idea what the minimal infectious dose (MID) is for COVID-19—the number of viral particles required “to start the pathogenesis cascade that causes a clinical disease”—even if we do have some idea about what regions of our respiratory system the virus can use as a point of entry. Knowing the MID for COVID-19 would be invaluable, because it may well turn out that it is significantly higher than the viral load capacity of small droplets, not to mention the even smaller viral load typically delivered by glancing contact with an infected surface. This would mean that many of our current COVID-19-avoidance protocols, however well-intentioned, would be guarding against modes of transmission that aren’t really significant contributors to the overall pandemic.”

  55. In a press conference that is still going on, Trump was told by a reporter from Yahoo that despite claims by him that testing per capita was greater in US than South Korea, Trump was wrong. No, Trump was not wrong. The clown from Yahoo was wrong. Testing in US is 17.000 per M vs 11,000 in South Korea. Dr Birx set the yahoo from Yahoo straight.

    How can anyone believe that the MSM is anything but an arm of the Democratic Party.

    • Sort by testing per million:

      https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

      The US is like 42 down on the list. Behind many of the European countries they like as a comparison for deaths per million and cases per million.

      Maybe that’s why he keeps referencing the absolute numbers?

      Ya’ think? Lol.

      • J

        The yahoo from Yahoo took his obvious error like a man and publicly apologized. How about you J, are you man enough to apologize for being wrong?

        https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/04/28/reporter-apologizes-to-donald-trump-after-dr-birx-fact-checks-testing-numbers/

      • What was I wrong about?

        Go to worldometers. Check for yourself.

      • Come on J what do you think I’m looking at, As I told you a couple of times go to the right hand side of the page of the worldometer website for global data. I said this before. It’s in black and white the tests per million column. The US number is over 17,000. The South Korea number is 11,000+.

        Admit you were wrong. Take it like a man.

      • The worldometer website has been updated this morning. These are the current numbers

        USA. 18,549
        South Korea 12,091

      • Don Monfort

        “Admit you were wrong. Take it like a man.”
        That putz has made a fool of himself, again. It’s amusing, tho.

      • Wow. I never said anything about Korea. I said the US was 42 on the list, and that’s why Trump takes about the absolute numbers. That’s why I have you the freakin’ url and told you to sort. Geez.

        Now we’re #43. Richest County in the world. #43. You must be proud.

      • And Don –

        Here:

        Stuff about HDQ. Of course, the researchers are quoted in the NYT. So they must have TDS, and hope everyone dies.

      • By the way, we’re also 16th from the top in cases per million. Being higher in cases per capita than we are in testing per capita is not good. Not good. Should be the other way around. Higher ratio of positive test results. Not good.

    • Oh, and this:

      > How can anyone believe that the MSM is anything but an arm of the Democratic Party.

      The media sure aren’t a trusted entity – but check out what % of the American public think their president is truthful. How can anyone believe the American president?

    • It’s right there in black and white on the right side of the page, just as Dr Birx said and I said. 17,000 tests per million US vs 11,000 tests per million S Korea

      A person has to be blind and deaf not to know how biased the press is. It started well before Trump. 50 years ago there was not a hint of bias. Now the reporters have a leftist agenda and they believe they are the story.

      • Sort by testing per million. Count the number of countries ahead of us.

        That’s the best testing in the world? You’re OK with that in your county? The richest country in the world? You’re OK with the president spinning the numbers on the testing – after lying repeatedly and saying anyone who wants a test can get a test?

        Wow.

    • The joshie believes the polls they feed him. Going to be shocked and saddened when the Big Orange Fella triumphs, again.

    • And J, I forgot to mention people’s exhibit numero uno, the coverup of sleepy Joe and his early venture into digitization of his workforce. What a bunch of hypocrites the Dems and their acolytes are about this despicable behavior 25 years ago. Do you really think if a Republican had been accused of the same thing they would have neglected to ask other Republicans about it or the accused Republican himself? Of course not.

      And where are the women’s groups? Where is the MeTooMovement. It’s a replay of the Bubba show. Convenient evaporation of outrage.

      • Kid –

        I’m not going to defend double standards with Biden. No need to.

        I’m merely pointing out what you continue to defend.

  56. Another trial with HDQ. Three arms 1200 total patients: One arm HDQ+ Pepcid, second arm HDQ alone, and the third is historical control. Some results could be reported in about 3 weeks:

    • Don Monfort: Some results could be reported in about 3 weeks:

      The video is unavailable. Do you have another link to the source?

      • youtube title:
        Coronavirus Pandemic Update 62: Treatment with Famotidine (Pepcid)?

      • Don Monfort: youtube title:
        Coronavirus Pandemic Update 62: Treatment with Famotidine

        thank you for the link.

        This apparently is the source referred to in the video:
        https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/04/new-york-clinical-trial-quietly-tests-heartburn-remedy-against-coronavirus

        Notice the concern that it would be unethical to have a control group without hydroxychloroquine — it appears from our reading that lots of doctors would agree with that, and a lot of doctors would disagree. By using historical controls, they will not have assurance that the patient populations and standards of care are comparable — patients for the study will be screened and treated with extra attention. For some reason the leader says that it is not “good science”, without explaining what is not “good” about it. It is one thing to point to particular limitation(s), but that is not to dismiss the rest of it. I think he might be regretting that he has not gotten more resources.

    • You still don’t get how bad it is to do your extrapolations.

      In the Miami testing (from someone actually smart in another blog).:

      ********

      > Our data from this week and last tell a very similar story. In both weeks, 6% of participants tested positive for COVID-19 antibodies, which equates to 165,000 Miami-Dade County residents.

      I find it highly suspicious that in Miami-Dade their antibody prevalence estimates are flat, but they’ve been reporting roughly the same number of new cases for the last few weeks. How could their cumulative case count be flat when their new cases have been rising?

      > The test kits were made by BioMedomics

      https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article241750556.html

      This test has somewhere between a 13.08% (!!!) and a 3.74% FPR depending on testing mode, and that’s not including confidence intervals.

      *****

      Maybe you should wait until we have reliable data and well done studies. That you think you know the IFR with that level of certainty at this point is just ridiculous.

      And even if you did, that level of fatality has vast different implications based on the attack rate and level of infectiousness.

      Comparing to the flu isn’t instructive because of vaccines and because the commonly referenced flu IFR is based on identified symptomatic people. If it were based on everyone who had mild or unnoticed symptoms (like “I thought I had a bad cold but didn’t go to the doctor”) which is what the “It’s just like the flu” crowd is doing with COVID, it would be much lower than the typically referenced 0.1%

  57. Matthew R Marler

    ER caseload is down in NYC.

    https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2020/04/28/doctors-on-the-front-lines-of-wuhan-coronavirus-its-time-to-open-the-economy-n2567762

    Gov de Santis is looking good:

    https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2020/04/28/desantis-blasts-media-for-reporting-florida-would-be-just-like-new-york-n2567785

    de Santis also praised Trump’s prompt support.

    I didn’t think CA Gov Newsom overreacted by his “lockdown” order (it was given several names); but now it is time to open up. CA has not come close to straining its hospital systems.

    • The Trump administration has laid out a set of criteria on which to base re-opening. Do you think any of those criteria are onerous?

      I’d hope that there’s a robust system of testing and tracing (and facilities for isolating) in place. I didn’t get the sense that ensuring that capacity was part of the recommendations.

      • Joshua: Do you think any of those criteria are onerous?

        I don’t think there should be one set of standards for all of the states. The states locked down independently, they can re-open independently.

      • Do you think the recommendations on criteria like trends in rates of infection are onerous for any particular states or localities?

        Sure, acceptable trend in rates might depend on things like localized availability of resources, maybe even testing rates or tracing/isolating capacity should be evaluated locally – but what has been put out are guidelines.

        Do you consider any of them onerous for any particular locality?

      • J

        Have you actually looked at the data by state by county? You can’t base any analysis on the state totals. There are hundreds and hundreds of counties of single digit deaths. I’m sure not unlike the typical flu season. The criteria need to recognize this vast difference in cases and the inherent risk and lack thereof for future spikes. Texas, Florida and California combined have fewer deaths than NYC. Each has fewer or near the number of deaths as Detroit, a city of 700,000 vs the population of about 20 M, 30 M and 40 M in those 3 states. Counties not far from Detroit have very few cases and deaths. Don’t bring a sledgehammer. This work needs a scalpel and some very precise analysis and criteria.

      • I don’t see any particular reason to think that things like rates of infection or hospitalizations or positive testing % should vary by locality except to the extent that resources would vary by locality, and testing infrastructure and tracing infrastructure might vary by locality. The absolute numbers are relevant but they aren’t the only relevant consideration.

      • Joshua: but what has been put out are guidelines.

        Do you consider any of them onerous for any particular locality?

        I have been reflecting on the word and concept “onerous” — what can you possibly mean? As “suggestions” they are certainly worth consideration, but some of them strike me as overly restrictive if one goal is to get Americans back to their jobs (e.g. producing and processing food) and other lives and liberties.

      • Matthew –

        > I have been reflecting on the word and concept “onerous” — what can you possibly mean?

        I guess I’m reacting to the oft’ used term of “draconian” in these discussions of COVID – but you didn’t use that term that I recall and so I would say that

        > overly restrictive

        is a better term.

        > if one goal is to get Americans back to their jobs (e.g. producing and processing food) and other lives and liberties.

        Sure…but it’s a balance, of course. And we’re balancing it against protecting the vulnerable, limiting spread, protecting against future spikes, protecting against the potential for worse outcomes with future social distancing mandates along with future spikes, protecting the hero healthcare workers on the front lines (an aspect that for me gets extra weighting), drawing out spread to allow for better average outcomes if better treatment and therapeutics are developed, etc.

        So which restrictions, in which areas, have you found to be overly restrictive?

  58. Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) says hydroxychloroquine has only about a 90% chance of helping COVID 19 patients:

    https://aapsonline.org/hcq-90-percent-chance/

    Our smarmy fans of the coronavirus will he rejoicing. No, wait. 90% chance ain’t bad. We’ll take that. Next we will find out that drinking bleach is good.

    “To date, the total number of reported patients treated with HCQ, with or without zinc and the widely used antibiotic azithromycin, is 2,333, writes AAPS, in observational data from China, France, South Korea, Algeria, and the U.S. Of these, 2,137 or 91.6 percent improved clinically. There were 63 deaths, all but 11 in a single retrospective report from the Veterans Administration where the patients were severely ill.”

    Do you get that? Of 2,333 patients in the studies they cite, outside of the retrospectively reported treatment in the VA hospitals on severely ill patients, there were only 11 deaths.

    “Peer-reviewed studies published from January through April 20, 2020, provide clear and convincing evidence that HCQ may be beneficial in COVID-19, especially when used early, states AAPS. Unfortunately, although it is perfectly legal to prescribe drugs for new indications not on the label, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recommended that CQ and HCQ should be used for COVID-19 only in hospitalized patients in the setting of a clinical study if available. Most states are making it difficult for physicians to prescribe or pharmacists to dispense these medications.”

    More positive news on hydroxychlorquine is coming.

  59. AAPS
    “Vaccines and results of randomized double-blind controlled trials of new drugs are at best months away. But patients are dying now, while affordable, long-used drugs would be available except for government restrictions, AAPS states.”

    • The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is a politically conservative non-profit association founded in 1943. It is opposed to the Affordable Care Act and other forms of universal health insurance…

      …its publication advocates a range of scientifically discredited hypotheses, including the belief that HIV does not cause AIDS, that being gay reduces life expectancy, that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer, and that there is a causal relationship between vaccines and autism.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons

      • It’s called counter-propaganda. You have your left loon useful idiots and we have ours. Ours happen to be right, this time.

      • went to moderation, must be set on 19th century schoolmarm
        It’s called counter-propaganda. You have your left loon useful —- and we have ours. Ours happen to be right, this time.

      • Ah, the left loons *made* you do it.

        That’s ok then.

        C’mon Don, you’re better than this. I don’t know what’s become of you, trumpeting quack cures from right wing hacks just because your favourite politician is.

        I’m very disappointed Don.

      • What quack cure? Approved for use against COVID 19 by the FDA. Used as standard of treatment by many thousands of docs. In dozens of clinical trials sanctioned by many governments. Even left loon hero Cuomo is begging for more to stem the horror that he and his junior partner left loon De Blasio have caused in NY and surrounding areas. Try to catch up. Stop the foolishness. Stop rooting for the virus.

      • “Approved for use against COVID 19 by the FDA.”

        Incorrect. To call this “approved” is to stretch the elastic of the English language well beyond its yield point.

        https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-cautions-against-use-hydroxychloroquine-or-chloroquine-covid-19-outside-hospital-setting-or

        Don, you’re usually belligerent and (by non US standards anyway) outrageously right wing.

        But you’re not usually so averse to facts.

        You continue to disappoint me. Must try
        harder.

      • VTG, You are the one who is playing the political hack here by using the political smear (fact free of course) against this organization. You knew nothing about them before Don mentioned them. But since a political hack must discredit those who disagree, you discovered that wikipedia (a terrible source on this kind of thing) thinks they are “conservative.”

        A quick perusal of their web page shows they are just advocating that the law allowing physicians to prescribe off label not be nullified by politicians. They are entitled to their opinion on the science.

      • dpy, they also provide references for why they came to their conclusion that aren’t entirely convincing, but supportive. This left loon joker didn’t read it. No more than he read the FDA announcement that doesn’t tell anybody to stop using HDQ against COVID 19. A pathetic display of political ax grinding.

      • dpy,

        It’s quite wonderful to observe you continuing your fight against ” the managerial state that Woodrow Wilson wanted to substitute for the Constitution and that Eisenhower warned about.” by supporting a conservative politically lobbying organisation and simultaneously accusing *others* of political hackery.

        Please, do continue. I shall bring popcorn.

        As to wiki being a poor source for “this sort of thing”, you can always go check their citations. And while you’re at it, find a reputable non political source that shares the views of the AAPS.

        Do report back.

      • Don,

        “No more than he read the FDA announcement that doesn’t tell anybody to stop using HDQ against COVID 19. ”

        Ah, so the claim they have “approved” it has gone. You’ll get there Don. You have it in you.

      • VTG, I did check a couple of Wiki’s references. They have published an article by Bauer on HIV. They published an article by Soon et al. on climate change making the case that CO2 is an overall positive.

        This is the classic political smear. The organization has published some controversial scientific papers. You then say they officially support all the positions taken in those papers.

        As just a non scientist who knows how to use Google, you lack qualifications to say much on medical topics and can cite nothing supporting your politically motivated positions, so you resort to smearing people.

        There are many many highly respected MD’s who believe HDQ works. You are an unqualified hack who looks to be posturing.

        The FDA warning makes no sense. HDQ has been in use for 50 years for millions of people who are not hospitalized. Why is this an issue now?

      • The FDA certainly has effectively “approved” HDQ for medical trials and in hospitals. They have taken no regulatory action to limit its use in other settings either. Their warming seems silly. The drug is already FDA approved for a wide range of medical conditions including long term use. My brother is using it in his hospitals on covid19 patients. Next thing you know, VTG (a nonscientist who likes to anonymously smear poeple on the internet) will say he is unqualified.

      • And VTG, you are now lying about what I said. I didn’t say I “supported” the organization. I just defended them against a political smear by a non scientists anonymous internet concensus enforcer with no qualificaitons other than being able to use Google.

      • Gone to moderation, dip____. Has the FDA told anybody to stop using HDQ against COVID 19? Everybody knows that the FDA has approved it’s use in the current emergency? If not, rather than advising caution against due to possible side effects, they would prohibit it’s use and take action against those using it. If you don’t know that, you are a _____, and @#4^%$#@.

      • dpy,

        That is some twisting and turning.

        A spectacular spectator sport.

        Now. Those citations of reputable scientific or medical organisations supporting their assessment?

        I’m waiting.

        Again.

      • Why do you make smarmy uninformed comments on things that you haven’t read? Why are you asking for their citations? Are you %$#^&^%$?

      • VTG, I’m not going to do any more of your work since you are an anonymous internet non scientist and no one will care what you think.

      • I already gave the %^&^%$*&()*&^ the link, dpy. He can’t read.

      • Well, well.

        Quite the histrionics there, Don and dpy. Almost as though your case is weak. But some helpful things too. Let’s summarise, shall we:

        1) The AAPS is not a bona fide medical organisation but a conservative political group, also into climate change denial (thanks for the confirmation, dpy)
        2) No reputable medical organisation is advocating the use of HDQ
        3) HDQ is not approved by FDA.

        Now, some suggestions:
        1) Don’t rely on political organisations for medical advice. Or, to put it more bluntly, don’t drink bleach.
        2) Don’t cherry pick data to match your pre formed conclusions.

        Anti virals in general and HDQ in particular may have some role to play against COVID. It seems unlikely to be a decisive role, but the evidence will show us soon. In the meantime, advocating the use of an agent like HDQ prophylactically when those most at risk to COVID are also most at risk to HDQ adverse events seems, to put it mildly, unwise in the extreme.

        Right boys, back to your histrionics. I’ll go refill my popcorn.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Doctors all over the world are using it. There must be a lot of quacks out there. I think the problem is that it isn’t as good an antiviral as we had hoped but it does reduce the cytokine storm and so is best used before that damage has been done. By spending so much of our time concentrating on what it does for almost dead people instead of finding out what it did for all our medical professionals that have been using it as a prophylactic we have probably lost lot of lives that could have been saved.

      • Another long comment from VTG that says nothing any md will care about. Doctors will continue to use hdcq because there is significant evidence it helps. Political hack attacks on organizations because they are ‘conservative’ by anonymous non scientists will not even be read by those making decisions.

      • dpy,

        I do love your comments.

        I’m sure they are being read avidly by decision makers.

        Do let us know your considered view of the AAPS as you take such exception to my characterisation of them.

        The popcorn is delicious btw.

      • The AMA is not a bona fide medical organization. Bunch of liberal quacks.

        The FDA has approved HDQ for use against COVID 19, if not they would be doing something about it’s very widespread use by doctors. Something more scary than giving gentle reminders about the possible side effects.
        https://www.fda.gov/media/136534/download

        You didn’t read the references that the AAPS cited for it’s position. You are ignorant. It’s in the link I provided your silly lazy ___.

        American Thoracic Society Suggests Hydroxychloroquine For Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients
        https://nurse.org/articles/thoracic-society-covid19-hydroxychloroquine/

        That’s enough…

      • Don, from your very own link

        Currently, there isn’t enough evidence for anyone to definitely say that hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine works as a treatment against COVID-19-

        Is that enough?

      • VTG, anonymous concensus enforcer non-scientist, uses political smear against an organization he doesn’t like. It’s a shameful attempt to cloud an issue that is very clear and spread disinformation. Not to mention the attempt to cast doubt on what those with actual qualifications say. Kind of the classical definition of science denial (as in merchants of doubt).

        Anyone reading this will know your MO by now VTG and stop reading.

      • dpy,

        You’re too funny.

        Somewhere in that spittle flecked rant may be some meaning to discern, who knows?

        Anyway, staying on topic (this is possible, you may wish to note), let’s hear your opinion of the AAPS. You’re not normally so shy. Is there a problem here, dpy??

      • This purely political need for a treatment to fail is just getting weird.

        One “side” points out, correctly, that actual medical professionals are recommending the treatment and using it, successfully in many cases.

        The other “side” says: “Currently, there isn’t enough evidence for anyone to definitely say that hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine works as a treatment against COVID-19-”

        Anyone who cares more about the virus than the politics would immediately recognize that both sides are right.

      • Yes Jeff, despite what merchants of doubt and denial like VTG peddle, there is absolutely no problem with the medical system. The FDA has approved the use of this drug and thousands of MD’s around the world are using it. The FDA issued a silly warming that any competent MD will ignore. This drug has been used by millions often for decades with no warning. The documented side effects occur with chronic usage for decades.

        If VTG (an anonymous internet persona with no visible qualifications) showed up at my brother’s office and tried to ‘splain to him how he should do his job, the answer would be “go to hell.” Instead, VTG shows up here to try to throw up a little mud on Don and myself. It’s a shameful tactic.

        Oh and unlike the people’s paradise of China, in the US, we have the 1st amendment. There is nothing wrong with organizations AAPS doing what they do.

      • The little varmint still hasn’t read the references. Nobody has said that there is enough evidence that HDQ “definitely” blah blah blah. But at least he has given up the foolish claim that the FDA has not approved HDQ for use against COVID 19.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Turkey uses it early in the infection. They claim to have had great success in preventing the onset of pneumonia in CV-19 patients that way. Of course you would if the cytokine storm was prevented or reduced and a drug used for autoimmune diseases is a likely suspect for doing just that. By all means though we better let people die needlessly until we have a double blind study to show that what they have already been documenting is true before e try it ourselves.

    • went to moderation, if Judith is not turned off by a word or two, just letting you know you when you see it you will need a nap and a binky
      I won’t spend any more time authoring a scorcher, only to have it go to moderation for who knows what triggers that _____

  60. AP liars by omission:

    Many failures combined to unleash death on Italy’s Lombardi

    https://apnews.com/de2794327607a3a67ed551f0b6b71404
    Many failures combined to unleash death on Italy’s Lombardy

    They blame everybody and everything, except China. China is mentioned a couple of times, obliquely. They give the date of the first “Italian” cases of CV, but fail to mention that they were tourists from China. They fail to mention the hundreds of thousands of Chinese who live in Lombardy and travel back and forth to Wuhan. Terrible left loon politically correct “reporting”.

  61. Hitting the heartland now.

    “Cases are growing fastest in Grand Forks, N.D.; Sioux City, Iowa; Waterloo, Iowa; Columbus, Ohio; Green Bay, Wisc.; Amarillo, Texas; Lincoln, Neb.; Des Moines, Iowa; Wichita, Kan.; and Chattanooga, Tenn., according to the study.”

    “https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coronavirus-spread-states-reopening/

    • Very biased and dramatic build up with thin justification:

      The ignorant author ignores evidence that HDQ works, or finds flaws in the studies suggesting it does and also ignores the flaws in the “evidence” that HDQ is bad:

      Brazil, where patients were overdosed and there was no evidence of prolonged QT causing arrythmia that caused serious consequences, such as cardiac arrest and death. They discontinued treating patients with high dosages of the more problematic old chloroquine, but continued treatment in the lower dose arm.

      VA retrospective where the study control arm and treatment arms were not well matched and hydroxychloroquine was given to the sickest patients and there was also no evidence of QT prolongation leading to arrythmia, leading to cardiac arrest causing any death.

      “Jankelson and his colleagues recently measured changes in QT interval for 84 COVID-19 patients who received hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin at NYU’s Langone Medical Center. Although none went into cardiac arrest during the study, 11% had QT intervals so prolonged that they were considered at high risk of arrhythmia, the researchers reported on 3 April in a medRxiv preprint. (They are now following up those results in a larger group of COVID-19 patients.) They also found that a normal QT interval before starting the drugs did not indicate that a person would avoid dangerous QT prolongation. In other words, it’s not just the people with an obvious risk of arrythmia who could develop cardiac side effects when they get the drug cocktail.”

      None went into cardiac arrest, and apparently none even went into arrythmia.

      They want to pin this on HDQ:

      “And a woman in New York died this month after her general practitioner prescribed hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin for coronaviruslike symptoms, NBC News reported last week. (There’s no proof that drug-induced arrhythmia caused her death, Ackerman says, “but it smells awfully fishy.”)”

      smells awfully fishy, huh

      “The current situation with hydroxychloroquine “is exactly what we try and avoid in medicine—hundreds of thousands of patients are being administered this medication outside of the context of research in which we can learn about its safety and efficacy,” Semler adds. “That’s a dangerous situation to be in.” ”

      There you have it, hundreds of thousands of patients are being administered this medication, because the doctors on the front lines practicing battlefield medicine against a deadly virus with no officially approved treatment believe that it works and have not seen anything to cause them to stop using it.

      • The article has lots of good lines. Here’s one: That finding suggests vigilance will be key, Jankelson says. “I probably would not prescribe the drug if I could not ensure continuous … [daily EKG] monitoring.”

        Just one opinion when, as you say, maybe thousands of physicians are using it as though it has no adverse effects at all.

      • “Just one opinion when, as you say, maybe thousands of physicians are using it as though it has no adverse effects at all.”

        Your opinion is worthless. Name one or two physicians who are using it as though it has no adverse effects at all? Do you think they don’t even read the freaking label? Get serious. You really don’t have a clue about medicine.

      • Don Monfort: There you have it, hundreds of thousands of patients are being administered this medication, because the doctors on the front lines practicing battlefield medicine against a deadly virus with no officially approved treatment believe that it works and have not seen anything to cause them to stop using it.

        Reports to date are very skimpy on important details about comorbidites such as liver damage or atrial fibrillation, neither of which is rare in clinical populations; and well-documented adverse reactions to HCQ such as induced heart arrhythmia leading to discontinuation.

        Just mentioning well-documented contra-indications and adverse reactions draws rebukes.

    • Don Monfort: Very biased

      I think it is worth the read, and is not “very” biased, if biased at all.

      Some experts think its good, some don’t; some proponents ignore risks and adverse reactions totally, whereas opponent emphasize the importance of attending to the risks.

      So, we continue to tally and evaluate all the results.

    • > They also found that a normal QT interval before starting the drugs did not indicate that a person would avoid dangerous QT prolongation. In other words, it’s not just the people with an obvious risk of arrythmia who could develop cardiac side effects when they get the drug cocktail.”

      11%. That’s a really high number. I wonder if having COVID put them at higher risk. That’s unfortunate. Hopefully an anomoly. I wonder if any of those 11% had problematic ekg’s before the drug was introduced.

      Prolly the study docs had TDS.

    • stevenreincarnated

      Maybe sage advice for people on their death bed but I don’t think people with Lupus, or RA get daily EKGs nor do I think that people using it as a malaria prophylaxis do. He probably had a scenario in his mind that isn’t really meant to be universal.

      • This is as close as they come to actually citing a case where HDQ caused a fatal, or near fatal event:

        “And a woman in New York died this month after her general practitioner prescribed hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin for coronaviruslike symptoms, NBC News reported last week. (There’s no proof that drug-induced arrhythmia caused her death, Ackerman says, “but it smells awfully fishy.”)”

        Smells awfully fishy is very useful scientific jargon, when you don’t have anything else.

      • stevereincarnated: He probably had a scenario in his mind that isn’t really meant to be universal.

        It was in the context of treating people diagnosed with COVID-19.

      • stevenreincarnated

        I have no doubt it was. I also have no doubt he was thinking of the people we seem to keep concentrating our efforts on which are those about to be lost. The problem is if the benefits from HCQ have to do with reducing the damage caused by the immune system then the damage has already been done at that point

  62. When the University of Minnesota Prophylaxis trial confirms this, the worm will turn:

    https://www.iltempo.it/salute/2020/04/28/news/coronavirus-farmaci-efficaci-news-danni-cura-annalisa-chiusolo-artrite-terapia-idrossiclorochina-sars-cov2-1321227/

    “Finally, further confirmation of this hypothesis is the data collected in the register of the SIR (Italian rheumatology society). To assess the possible correlations between chronic patients and Covid19, SIR interrogated 1,200 rheumatologists throughout Italy to collect statistics on infections. Out of an audience of 65,000 chronic patients (Lupus and Rheumatoid Arthritis), who systematically take Plaquenil / hydroxychloroquine, only 20 patients tested positive for the virus. Nobody died, nobody is in intensive care, according to the data collected so far.”

    • stevenreincarnated

      That same article had a link to a Korean paper describing their use of HCQ as a post exposure treatment to an exposure incident.

      • Thanks, steve. I missed that. I had my wife, who speaks Sanish, Portuguese, French and Jamaican , read that for me and she said to use Google translate for the last paragraph to get the gist of the story. I won’t rely on her, next time.

        https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092485792030145X?via=ihub

        “Many patients would be expected to become infected with COVID-19 in the setting of cluster outbreaks associated with LTCHs. In this study, there were no additional confirmed cases among exposed patients and caregivers; however, it is not clear whether PEP was effective because there was no control group.”

        “Although there was no adequate control group and the study was conducted at a single center, this is the first study to use PEP with HCQ as an outbreak response strategy against COVID-19 in an LTCH. A total of 92 hospital staff, including physicians and nurses, showed negative PCR results after 14 days of quarantine even though they did not receive PEP. From these results, we could not conclude that PEP is effective for prevention of COVID-19 in close contacts. However, there were differences in the level of risk exposure: patients and careworkers might have had close contact with the index case (high-risk exposure) and most hospital staff were at low-risk exposure. Nonetheless, this study showed that all 189 patients and 22 careworkers who received PEP did not develop COVID-19.”

        Watch for results soon of the Univ. of Minn PEP trial that has a control arm. Interim report says that due to events in the control group the trial can be completed with significantly fewer patients. I take that to mean the treatment group is doing much better than the control. When I get some time away from my drinking, I’ll provide the link again.

  63. Fauci was ecstatic over the announcement of results from a remdesivir trial, today. I sold my Gilead stock for a very nice profit. I don’t share his odd enthusiasm. He needs to retire, before Trump fires him after re-election.

  64. nobodysknowledge

    Many ways to die from COVID-19? Heart, blood vessels, stomach, brain, skin, liver etc.
    “While our understanding of COVID-19 has been progressing relatively quickly, there is still so much we don’t know. This virus appears to be acting like syphilis, “the great imitator,” with so many different manifestations in people—and we don’t know why that is true.”
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/judystone/2020/04/27/spots-on-toes-and-rashes-join-weird-new-symptoms-of-coronavirus/

    • It’s not surprising that there are so many different symptoms/manifestations – the only thing that connects these people are the very unspecific/unreliable virus tests, and sometimes not even that (claiming a covid-19 death without a test in some cases). Without the SARS-CoV-2 tests there is no new disease, just already known diseases (respiratory, cardiovascular, flu- or cold-like symptoms and complications…).

    • Look up video on youtube, links don’t work:

      Coronavirus Pandemic Update 63: Is COVID-19 a Disease of the Endothelium (Blood Vessels and Clots)?

      Very good explanation of how CV is playing havoc. Start at 13:00 if you want the short story, but it is all very interesting and well explained physiology and biochemistry.

      CV targets ACE2 which is necessary in the chemistry that reduces Reactive Oxygen Species, which cause destructive oxidative stress.

      • None of this is new, other coronaviruses do it too (allegedly). ACE2 is the receptor for both the SARS-CoV and the related human respiratory coronavirus NL63.
        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1287568/

        MERS-CoV too, look it up.

      • The COVID 19 virus is new. That’s the one we are talking about. But thanks.

      • The (SARS-CoV2) virus is newly discovered. I haven’t seen good evidence that it’s really new.

      • OK. We must have had this pandemic before, but we didn’t notice it.

        You know, if you had shared all this knowledge in your reply to nobodysknowledge, I wouldn’t have bothered to re-locate that video, watch parts of it again to make sure I remembered it correctly and then recommend it to nobodysknowledge, who I hoped would find it useful.

      • edimbukvarevic:The (SARS-CoV2) virus is newly discovered. I haven’t seen good evidence that it’s really new.

        It has a long lineage. The genetic analyses show that the “newly” infective and lethal strain emerged in late 2019. Warnings that something “like” it could emerge go back at least a decade, hence all the laboratory research.
        It is “similar enough” to what went before that the laboratory research led rapidly to dozens of vaccine candidates and medicine candidates; it is “new enough” to spread rapidly and “radiate” into distinct strains. This is not an easy time for people who prefer strict dichotomies, such as between new and not new.

      • Matthew,

        “The genetic analyses show that the “newly” infective and lethal strain emerged in late 2019.”

        This is how certain are these genetic analyses:

        “The most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all coronaviruses is estimated to have existed as recently as 8000 BCE, although some models place the common ancestor as far back as 55 million years or more, implying long term coevolution with bat and avian species.”
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronavirus

        The hysteria and lockdowns are based on the SARS-CoV-2 being new (2019) and therefore humans having no immunity to it.

      • “The hysteria and lockdowns are based on the SARS-CoV-2 being new (2019) and therefore humans having no immunity to it.”

        So, the SARS-CoV-2 is “new” but not “really new”. Whether the ancestor of the thing is from 55 million or 10,000 years ago is irrelevant. Try to give us something that is not trivia.

      • edimbukvarevic: “The most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all coronaviruses is estimated to have existed as recently as 8000 BCE, although some models place the common ancestor as far back as 55 million years or more, implying long term coevolution with bat and avian species.”

        That adds to my comment that it has a long lineage. But the “new” strain is “sufficiently new” to be causing trouble as when measles is introduced to new populations. It has been called “Novel” by scientists.

        The hysteria and lockdowns are based on the SARS-CoV-2 being new (2019) and therefore humans having no immunity to it.

        The lockdowns were based on early evidence of rapid spread and risk of death. They are maintained because people in power (e.g. CA Gov Newsom) don’t want to cause a large “second wave” of deaths, a wave of which we have been warned by experts.

  65. Can’t stop thinking about Swedish models.

    • I’m not following how Sweden is so successful. Their death rate per 1 million is 10th highest in the world, significantly higher than any other Scandinavian country, and even a good bit higher than the US.

      But if you want to buy into the entire Swedish model. Health care, social support net, taxation – yeah, I could go with that.

      • If short term deaths is the benchmark, Sweden has clearly failed.

        They argue that it is more sustainable in the medium to long term.

        We’ll see.

      • Yes, clearly failing now so anybody who thinks it is a better strategy either is operating on faith it will work out in the long term or really just wants more deaths.

        If solid treatments or vaccines come along quickly, the more deaths strategy will be a failure in the long term too.

      • No, the goal of Sweden didn’t mean no short term pain, but did mean quicker herd immunity.

        More important to the disease, which is not being discussed much, is to eat healthily and protect your thymus gland.

      • VTG –

        > They argue that it is more sustainable in the medium to long term.

        One of the issues is that they’re selling short on the development of more effective therapeutics over time, or a vaccine. And they’re doing so in the context of a society with many idiosyncrasies that might be considered to recommend that approach in Sweden but not other countries.

        IMO, people are using Sweden as a means to confirm ideological biases (on both sides). Another unfortunate outcome of the COVID-19 pandemic.

      • Wonder what will these varmints will say if when winter comes around, Sweden is relatively clear of CV, while the rest of us are back in lock down.

      • Joshua,

        “IMO, people are using Sweden as a means to confirm ideological biases (on both sides). Another unfortunate outcome of the COVID-19 pandemic”.

        Exactly. They’re fine following Sweden on this but not so much on the socialism thing or climate policy. The same ones pushing all of the unproven treatments are at the same time pushing for the herd immunity approach. The herd immunity approach might make sense if there never will be a treatment or vaccine in the future. If we expect a vaccine or treatment, the logical thing would be to minimize deaths until there is a vaccine or proven treatment.

    • Take a look at the graphs on Sweden and tell what is so great about it.

      https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/

      • The idea is not to hide, but achieve herd immunity without destroying livelihoods. Ideally, this would be from vaccination, but that’s not possible yet, and may not be for 18 months, so herd immunity is the only way.

        So, the thing we are avoiding, exposure, denies the thing that we also want, immunity.

        Sweden, claims, though there is still uncertainty, that they are a lot further toward herd immunity than others.

        Apparently, the WHO believes they are right.

      • James Cross: Take a look at the graphs on Sweden and tell what is so great about it.

        It is not that Sweden is so great, but that they are better than a bunch of EU countries at lower cost, and while acquiring a greater degree of immunity.

        There are no cost-free solutions, and Sweden has a cost/benefit set that is worth consideration as a model.

      • Eddie, old folks like me, or those with compromised immune systems should still hide and not come out until either herd immunity, no local cases, or a vaccine appears.

    • I like their Climate Action Plan. Can’t stop thinking about those carbon taxes.

      “The Swedish government published a new plan on 17 December 2019 with 132 actions. Climate law has been in place since 2017. Sweden’s goal is to reduce greenhouse gases 85% from the 1990 level by 2045. The 2019 plan outlines specific targeted reductions for aviation and sea travel. The plan includes a carbon tax, tax reform that supports climate and environment goals, a green tax, a climate LCA for buildings in 2022, the requirement that all electricity, heating and transport must be carbon zero in 2045, and promotes private renewable energy projects to make them easier and cheaper. The short term goal is to reduce emissions from transport sector including aviation within Sweden at least 70% by 2030. Alternatives to private cars in cities are considered. A new price system for collective traffic will be introduced latest in 2022”.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_in_Sweden#Plan_2019

    • I had a Swedish model, about 5’11”, name Ula.

      • We have millions of people working their jobs to feed, protect and otherwise sustain the other millions. They are taking the risk. I am guessing you aren’t one of them. How do you feel about that?

      • James Cross: You first.

        Around 2/3 – 3/4 of all workers in the US are still working. Most of the rest are eager to get back to work as soon as the Governors reduce and rescind the restrictions.

        Unless there is a completely disease-free solution, which no one has shown to be possible without a vaccine, then now is a good time to rescind almost all of the restrictions, maybe all on the “young and metabolically healthy.”

        As for me, ancient and overweight, I wear a mask indoors with other people because I think it protects them from me. I expect to get infected eventually, and the sooner the better, as long as I don’t kill others.

      • I’m in.

        Evidently, for under 65s, the risk of dying from driving may be worse than risk of dying from COIVD.

        You stopped driving?

      • The Tweet is asking the young and healthy to deliberately expose themselves to the virus. Don, Matthew, Eddie – any of you deliberately exposed yourself to the virus?

        Ironically there is a good chance I actually could expose myself to the virus without harm even though I am 70 years old and retired.

        https://broadspeculations.com/2020/04/28/covid-19-vaccine/

      • Matthew R Marler

        James Cross: any of you deliberately exposed yourself to the virus?

        I have not avoided any of the places I went to before, except as prohibited (e.g.Wendy’s, take out only.) What would you recommend? That I go to the beach? I’m 73, fwiw.

      • Don Monfort

        We aren’t stupid. And we don’t have the liking for the virus that you have.

      • stevenreincarnated

        They tell people they can go back to work if they have the antibodies as some have suggested and there will be CV=19 parties.

      • any of you deliberately exposed yourself to the virus?

        Looks like most of us including you are in the at risk age category.

        But the young are the ones much less susceptible to the virus,
        but much more susceptible to already paying economic hardship.

        Meanwhile, this is to the benefit of us more susceptible old foggies, who aren’t that important to the economy and are doing ok until our retirements collapse.

  66. Lots of folks here know about fraudulent alarmist Climatism fraud and Depression, CLimate Gate is surpassed in the world of Big Pharma
    Dr Judy A Mikovits PHD has a virtual sit-down with Patrick Bet-David and opens up about her fallout with Anthony Fauci that led to her 5 year arrest and whistleblower status. Order her book https://amzn.to/2VL3AC8 Site: Plague of Corruption https://bit.ly/2Yg3Tqn Follow her on Twitter:@DrJudyAMikovits https://bit.ly/2VK4xL8

  67. 100,000 US dead by end of August:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8273607/Top-COVID-19-model-predicts-100-000-dead-end-summer.html

    April saw close to 60,000 US deaths attributed to COVID-19. The usual caveats about false positive and false negative rates of diagnosis, and what I shall call a “dubious” set of rules for attribution. Still, this is getting toward the worst of my range of expectations.

    • The 1968 flu saw around that many, which population weighted would be about 170,000 in 2020.

      And, as a nation, we’re older and fatter than we were in 1968.

      So, less significant than the 1968 flu?

  68. dpy,

    The FDA has approved the use of this drug and thousands of MD’s around the world are using it. The FDA issued a silly warming that any competent MD will ignore.

    A simply wonderful juxtaposition. Poetic even.

    This drug has been used by millions often for decades with no warning. The documented side effects occur with chronic usage for decades.

    Interesting claim.

    Contrasts with the label somewhat mind. Doubtless you know best.

    Do carry on.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s