COVID-19 discussion thread VII

by Judith Curry

Some interesting papers that I’ve spotted over the past week.

New study from S. Korea finds HCQ +AZ (or other antibiotic) significantly reduces time to viral clearance and hospital stay in moderate covid-19 patients compared to both conservative treatment and Lopinavir-ritonavir. medrxiv.org/content/10.110

The #COVID19 “6-feet rule” falls apart with even a slight breeze aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.106 based upon extensive simulations of coughing and airborne droplet transmissions (e.g. saliva can travel 18 feet in 5 sec w/ a bit of wind)

Wearing a mask can reduce coronavirus transmission by 75% [link]

Covid Patients Testing Positive After Recovery Aren’t Infectious, Study Shows. They’re shedding only dead virus. [link]

Why are non-white Britons more likely to die of COVID19? [link]

Comparison of France to Marseille where people are being treated with HCQ+AZ. 0.5% fatality rate compared to 21.6% nationwide. francesoir.fr/efficacite-des

Mathematical models as public troubles in COVID-19 infection control: following the numbers [link]

The Covid-19 fatality rate remains at 1% in Senegal as the country continues to broadly use hydroxychloroquine “despite warnings from the World Health Organization.” wfuv.org/content/senega

Why DID so many athletes fall sick in Wuhan in October? More competitors reveal they were ill at the World Military Games months before China admitted coronavirus could be passed between humans mol.im/a/8327047

Coronavirus did NOT come from animals in Wuhan market’: Landmark study suggests it was taken into the area by someone already infected  mol.im/a/8326823

Malaysia has used hydroxychloroquine since the first wave of the Covid-19 outbreak. The recovery rate there now exceeds 80%. The country of over 30 million people only has 1,247 active cases. [link]

Policy

UK’s coronavirus response repeats the errors of past crises [link]

Britain’s hard lesson about blind trust in scientific authorities [link]

Fight over virus death toll opens grim new front in election battle [link]

Scientific integrity in the COVID response [link]

Estimating the burden of COVID in France [link]

Taiwan’s secret weapon against COVID:  An epidemiologist as Vice President [link]

The Kerala model- why this Indian state is doing so well in the COVID crisis [link]

Peter Gluckman – Reflections on the evidentiary-politics interface [link]

People or jobs, or wealth? The government has to decide which to prioritize. [link]

Why meatpacking plants have become COVID hot spots [link]

States are the laboratories of democracy [link]

Sociology

The secret lives of perfect social distancers [link]

Virus pushes science and its controversies center state [link]

This pandemic shows that collaborating is better than competing, says author and theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli [link]

Are “experts” all they are cracked up to be? Expert journalist says, “no”. theatlantic.com/magazine/archi

Understanding COVID19 — a supernova in human history [link]

World View: It is time to adopt a ‘red team’ approach in science that integrates criticism into each step of the research process, writes @lakens. “A scientific claim is as reliable as only the most severe criticism it has been able to withstand.” go.nature.com/35PcJx2

Pandemic researchers — recruit your own best critics [link]

The biggest Asian neighborhood in NYC has had one if the lowest rates of covid-19. Why? Masks & early warning from relatives overseas. [link]
.
The world doesnt yet know enough to beat the coronavirus [link]
.
The radical uncertainties of coronavirus [link]
.
Covid-19 Science as a Contact Sport – what #Climate scientists have lived with for two decades, coronavirus researchers such as #NeilFerguson are finding out in a hurry politico.eu/article/corona
.
What was the point of offices anyway? econ.trib.al/UXBrQhR

565 responses to “COVID-19 discussion thread VII

  1. Those reinfections?

    A Korean study identified 275 people who tested negative after surviving Covid-19, and then tested positive again.
    https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/498516-covid-patients-testing-positive-for-second-infection-not-contagious-study
    None of them were infectious. None of them were sick, though they might have had a cough or a sore throat. All of them had antibodies.

    Apparently the PCR RNA test is sensitive enough to detect fragments of RNA, without intact organisms… If you can apply the word organism to an entity that does not ingest, digest, or excrete, functions that we associate with organisms. No livers, muscles, or neurons, just weaponized chemicals. Not only are we not omnipotent, we can’t even defeat these wimps.

  2. Don Montford will be excited about the HDCQ results.

    • Let’s hope he and Trump and others have good reason to crow.

    • dpy, this is the work of the evil Dr. Didier Raoult:

      http://www.francesoir.fr/efficacite-des-mesures-un-point-de-vue-factuel-marseille-30-fois-moins-de-chance-de-mourir-du-covid

      “When we now look at the treatments used and here the data are at the level of the city of Marseille. The mortality rate, all positive people, all hospitals combined, is 3.1%. This rate increases to 8.6% for people who have not received HCQ and AZ treatment . What is interesting to note is that this rate is 0.5% for patients who have received the HCQ and AZ treatment .

      For the record, the death rate in Germany is 4.5%.”

      In Marseille, the mortality rate is lower than that of Germany, probably because the massive screening and the treatment given early has an ESSENTIAL effect.”

      There are now almost 200 HCQ-COVID 19 trials listed on clinicaltrials.gov:

      197 Studies found for: hydroxychloroquine | covid 19
      Also searched for SARS-CoV-2 and Plaquenil.

      Why do you suppose that POTUS Trump, who has been smeared and vilified for being optimistic about HCQ, announced he is using it? I know. Bad news on HCQ for the virus cheerleaders is coming soon. Stay tuned.

      One of the virus cheerleaders insisted a few days ago that plasma from recovered COVID 19 patients was not being given to hospitalized patients. Here’s a doc with ENCOURAGING words on the progress of trials at Columbia, Mayo Clinic, Johns Hopkins etc.

      • Don Monfort

        Title of video on youtube is:
        Plasma Therapy: Could That Be The Future of Treating Covid-19?

      • Don Monfort: dpy, this is the work of the evil Dr. Didier Raoult:

        No one has accused him of being evil.

      • Don Monfort

        You don’t know what you are talking about, again. He’s been called a witch doctor, dangerous charlatan, quack but I guess that ain’t calling him evil. You have obviously been brainwashed by the left loon media attacks.

      • russellseitz

        “He’s been called a witch doctor, dangerous charlatan, quack but I guess that ain’t calling him evil. You have obviously been brainwashed by the left loon media attacks.”

        Honi soit qui mal y fait

        At least he knows the difference in therapeutic index between the quines , chloro and hydroxy, and has never ever told gullible readers to swallow a fatal dose of either, on the advice of a mad mate in the malarial tropics.

      • Don Monfort: but I guess that ain’t calling him evil

        Good guess.

  3. Might have results from a study on HCQ use as post-exposure prophylaxis next week.

    https://www.cnn.com/videos/health/2020/05/19/david-boulware-hydroxychloroquine-study-burnett-ebof-intv-vpx.cnn

    • Curious George

      I love a fresh idea of publishing results from a study as a video. Will it be peer-reviewed? By CNN’s peers, probably.

      • russellseitz

        Pass the fish tank cleaner, this is getting hilarious!

      • Don Monfort

        We have all been wondering why there are around 200 ongoing clinical trials testing that aquarium cleaner as prophylaxis or treatment for COVID 19. Do you know anything about that, rustle? Or are you just inebriated and slumming, again?

    • No serious side effects, no cardiac arrythmias. And he knows more than he is letting on. I know more than he is letting on. Stay tuned.

      Dr. Bouleware is being a bit coy and somewhat disingenuous:

      “If you consent to participate, we will ask you to:

      Agree to be randomly assigned to receive hydroxychloroquine or a vitamin. If you agree to this study, there would be a 50-50 chance of receiving a vitamin instead of hydroxychloroquine.
      -Take the study medication for five days.
      -Answer 3 – 5 short, online follow-up surveys.
      -There are no required in-person visits.
      Anyone nationwide can participate, if eligible. You do not need to be in Minnesota.”

      The trial is not being conducted in a clinical setting and patients are not supervised, or even examined. Why would they do this? Because the drug is very safe and anybody with a lick of sense knows it.

  4. David L. Hagen (HagenDL)

    83% drop in infection fatality rate with Hydroxychloroquine + Azithromycin
    The hospital system where Didier Raoult et al. work, IHU Méditerranée Infection, posts a running total of fatalities for patients treated with Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin versus previous cases without:
    Mediterranee Infectionaire reports 0.55% infection fatality rate for COVID-19 (18 deaths/ 3298 patients) when treating hospitalized patients with Hydroxychloroquine & Azithromycin.
    Before that had a 57&% higher fatality rate:
    3.1% infection fatality rate. (153 deaths/4864 patients)
    https://www.mediterranee-infection.com/covid-19/

    Dr Raoult et al. reported on 1061 patients treated at IHU Méditerranée Infection:
    Million, M., Lagier, J., Gautret, P., Colson, P., Fournier, P.E. and Amrane, S., 2020 Early treatment of COVID-19 patients with hydroxychloroquine and
    azithromycin: A retrospective analysis of 1061 cases in Marseille, France

    • “Mediterranee Infectionaire reports 0.55% infection fatality rate for COVID-19 (18 deaths/ 3298 patients) when treating hospitalized patients with Hydroxychloroquine & Azithromycin.
      Before that had a … higher fatality rate:
      3.1% infection fatality rate. (153 deaths/4864 patients)”

      I wonder if we’re confused about the IFR and CFR (case fatality rate)? When we say that we have a 3.1% infection fatality rate then that’s actually quite high, but is that counting all infections, including asymptomatic cases (who never become “patients”) or mild infections that never come forward to be treated?

      If you have a 0.55% “IFR” when treating hospitalized patients, then clearly you’re talking about cases: these people are sick enough to be in hospital. Would 0.55% be the Covid-19 hospitalized fatality rate (HFR??) It might be closer to the CFR (of which only a certain percentage become hospitalized) but it’s nowhere near the IFR.

      I bring this up because if we rely on the CEBM (Center for Evidence Based Medicine) IFR estimated range of 0.2-0.41%, then IFRs of 0.55% and 3.1% are both above that range and an IFR of 3.1% would be cause for some alarm.

      My own estimates using CEBM overall IFR of 0.41%, CDC Covid death data, and US population data is that the IFR for those over 65 is 2%, which is high and cause for concern, but the IFR for those under 65 is 0.01%, which is no cause for alarm (within the under-65 group, those 35-64 have an IFR of 0.2%.) Covid IFR rates are highly correlated with age. Mix them all together and you get an overall IFR of 0.41%.

      • Don Monfort

        Here you go, 132:

        https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2017-2018.htm

        “The overall burden of influenza for the 2017-2018 season was an estimated 45 million influenza illnesses, 21 million influenza-associated medical visits, 810,000 influenza-related hospitalizations, and 61,000 influenza-associated deaths (Table: Estimated Influenza Disease Burden, by Season — United States, 2010-11 through 2017-18 Influenza Seasons).”

        Flu related deaths 61,000/810,000 hospitalized patients = 0.075
        Of course, all deaths were not hospitalized patients, but close enough.

        “Mediterranee Infectionaire reports 0.55% infection fatality rate for COVID-19 (18 deaths/ 3298 patients) when treating hospitalized patients with Hydroxychloroquine & Azithromycin.”

        18/3298 = 0.0055
        61k/810k = 0.075

      • @the other Don thanks for the comment.

        “Flu related deaths 61,000/810,000 hospitalized patients = 0.075
        Of course, all deaths were not hospitalized patients, but close enough.
        ….
        18/3298 = 0.0055
        61k/810k = 0.075”

        Your math is as good as mine!
        If 61,000/810,000 is 0.075, then that gives us a (hospitalized) CFR of 7.5%, which is quite high and not in line with the expected flu value, 0.1% for IFR (or, as is often confused, the “CFR”.) A more accurate IFR would use the entire infected estimate.

        But I see your point.

      • Don Monfort

        My point is, I like your HFR for comparing the fatality rate of seasonal flu vs. fatality rate of HCQ+AZ treated COVID 19:

        “Would 0.55% be the Covid-19 hospitalized fatality rate (HFR??)”

        I would say yes, according to that set of data, in that location, at that time. Compare that with the HFR for the U.S. seasonal flu, 2017-2018:

        .55% vs. 7.5%

        I would say that early treatment of COVID 19 with HCQ + AZ looking good, provided the Marseilles results are verified by similar results in other clinical settings, particularly in prospective randomized double blind placebo controlled clinical trials etc. etc. I wouldn’t expect it to be that effective, but even if it slips quite a bit, it would still be impressive.

        The seasonal flu estimated IFR for 2017-2018 would be 61,000 /45,000,000 = .14% I don’t care to guess what the IFR is for COVID 19, but if the success rate for early treatment with HCQ+AZ is anywhere nearly that good, the IFR will consequently be low and we won’t be needing any more of this lock down pain. The virus cheerleaders will all be on Prozac and Thunderbird.

      • I’m all for hydroxychloroquine, and I think the dismissal of this because it’s “anecdotal” is criminal. It’d be anecdotal if you heard it from your grandmother, but not if you heard it from eight doctors who find a significant improvement of HCQ in conjunction with other meds (including vitamin C!) in lowering rates of ICU admissions.

        This denial of a known, successful, early treatment for Covid leads me to believe that the purpose of Covid is to instill fear and panic, so that a world-state premised on technology and tracking can come into being: surveillance, monitoring of dissenters, and control. This is the definition of tyranny. Those who go along and support this new order will benefit most from being good soldiers, and these soldiers have already been recruited.

        Wow!! And I haven’t even had my second glass of wine yet. In another hour I may have even more to say ….

  5. David L. Hagen (HagenDL)

    Prophylactic use of Hydroxychloroquine

    After a large COVID-19 exposure event in a LTCH in Korea, PEP using hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was conducted to 211 persons including 189 patients and 22 careworkers, whose baseline polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests for COVID-19 were negative. PEP was completed in 184 (97.4%) patients and 21 (95.5%) careworkers without serious adverse events. At the end of 14 days of quarantine, follow-up PCR tests were all negative.

    Lee, S.H., Son, H. and Peck, K.R., 2020. Can post-exposure prophylaxis for COVID-19 be considered as one of outbreak response strategies in long-term care hospitals? International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, p.105988. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7162746/

    • Curious George

      Do we have now, in May 2020, anything better than the hydroxychloroquine? Please tell me what it is.

      The WHO and FDA issued warnings on HCQ. Apparently, once you are on a deathbed, it won’t bring you back. Let people die to bring Trump down.

  6. Why Are Non-White Britons More Likely to Die of COVID-19?

    The link to a Vitamin D deficiency certainly sounds compelling but could be a statistical artifact, e.g., I imagine meat workers who test positive at a far higher rate than would be expected probably get very little on the job UVB exposure, among all the other factors the article discussed and adjusted for without apparently explaining the disparity in death rates. But, how many other such factors may exist that also have not been adjusted for that are not related to working indoors? Perhaps fewer have received vaccinations in the past. There may be more drinkers among them or perhaps of those who do drink, compared to most drinkers, perhaps more meat plant workers prefer bourbon then beer. Perhaps there is another relationship, e.g., that those who are Vitamin D deficient are most often also deficient in magnesium… I wish we knew more than we do.

    • Temperature in a meat processing plant is kept around 40F plus minus 1 or 2 degrees. There are no windows, no sunlight, Just a huge cold fricking refridgerator. Prime weather conditions for processing meat & prime weather conditions for growth of most viruses.

      • Don Monfort

        Very astute observation, Mr. Dallas. And meat packing plants seem to be the only type of work environments, outside of nursing homes, that are generating CoV cases and deaths.

    • http://blog.wellnessfx.com/2013/08/14/the-vitamin-d-sweet-spot-and-its-relationship-to-aging/
      Skin pigmentation – Melanin, the pigment found in skin, is an adaptation that serves as a natural sunscreen, so darker skin color also blunts the body’s ability to make vitamin D.
      Age – As we age our body becomes less efficient at producing vitamin D from sun exposure.2 In fact, a 70-year-old makes 4 times less vitamin D from the sun than a 20-year-old.
      Body fat – Since vitamin D is fat soluble, the higher the body fat, the lower the bioavailability. A higher concentration of body fat prevents the vitamin D from being released into the blood stream. In fact, obese individuals have 50% less bioavailability of vitamin D compared to non-obese individuals.

      The 3 things are consisent with who is dying according to my news sources which is highlighted by Fox News.

      And the above was written at least 5 years ago.

      No regrets. Fish oil (read the label) and other foods high in Vitamin D.

  7. That’s a great list of links! Thanks.

    Small correction for you: the link for “Britain’s hard lesson about blind trust in scientific authorities” is a dupe of another of your links, not what it says it is!

    Maybe this one: https://www.city-journal.org/coronavirus-model-driven-decision-making ?

  8. Pingback: Judith Curry’s Covid-19 Discussion Thread: “Interesting papers I’ve spotted over the past week”-May 19, 2020…(Like, Covid-19 fatality rate remains 1% in Senegal which continues broad use of hydroxychloroquine “despite warnings

  9. Perhaps those of you in the USA are not aware that the Mail on Sunday and the Daily Mail are not considered reliable sources of information in the UK. Think of a slightly posher version of the National Enquirer.

    • Thanks for the heads up. There is value in looking at the National Enquirer when standing in grocery lines, though. Being able to see JFK and Jackie on the cover even now takes me down memory lane back to the days when I could still do the Twist.

    • Roger Knights

      “the Mail on Sunday and the Daily Mail are not considered reliable sources of information in the UK. Think of a slightly posher version of the National Enquirer.”

      It’s not that bad, according to an article (“Journalism with Attitude”) by the editor (Hugo de Burgh) of a British anthology titled “Investigative Journalism,” which is something of a “bible” in journalism schools. It’s on pages 272–88 of the 2nd edition.

      BTW, I read an article a week ago about the Mail-group’s major expansion into the U.S.

      • Steve Taylor

        The DM spent several years supporting Andrew Wakefield’s fake research and campaigning against vaccinations ;(

      • Roger Knights

        The essay I cited mentioned that. It wasn’t blind to the paper’s faults.

    • But the UK has a lot of problems. Think of what it used to be? I’ll use my own opinion about the Daily Mail.

  10. I doubt we will ever find out the actual death and case numbers from China but I’m more inclined to believe the 640,000 cases than the official number. Since April 30 they supposedly have had single digit increases in cases 17 days. Yeah, right.

    • “but I’m more inclined to believe the 640,000 cases than the official number”
      I have a lot less faith in numbers from the Daily Mail than from China. Do you see what they did here? Someone got hold of a database which had 640,000 lines. No-one actually knows what they mean. But the Daily Mail slaps on a headline
      “China may have 640,000 coronavirus cases instead of 84,000”

      The unfortunate guy who had to write up this crap at least noted some of the issues:
      “Inconsistencies in data gathering methods means it is possible that single cases could have been counted several times, skewing the figures.

      The data set also does not make it clear what was classified as a ‘confirmed’ case of the virus, which had led to discrepancies in reporting in other countries.

      Since no names or identifying details were included with the data, both Foreign Policy and 100Reporters said it has been impossible to verify any of the cases.

      MailOnline has not seen the dataset, which has not been released publicly. “

      • Don Monfort

        I am with nicky, on this one. The Daily Mail has been known to incarcerate and disappear folks, who contradict their reporting. China has no motive to
        shade the numbers. They’ve been very transparent. Very, very transparent. So transparent, you can see right through them.

      • Nick

        We will never know. When people disappear in the middle of the night in China they don’t know if they bought the farm or bought themselves a life sentence on a re-education farm.

      • “The Daily Mail has been known to incarcerate”
        The Daily Mail has been known to write stuff that just isn’t true. And they are obviously doing it here.

      • “I’ve had this story for three years. I’ve had this interview with Virginia Roberts. We would not put it on the air. First of all I was told, ‘Who is Jeffrey Epstein? No one knows who that is. This is a stupid story.'”

        I have an argument somewhere around here. Let’s say the specific Daily Mail story is wrong. They are still trying. Not looking to stay in China’s good graces I suppose.

        Of course we down weight the specific facts and fall back on reputations.

      • Don Monfort

        nicky: “I have a lot less faith in numbers from the Daily Mail than from China.”, because the Oppressive Red Chinese Thugocracy only lies, when their lips are moving.

      • Nick

        The Telegraph blaring headline….Sweden has highest COVID19 death rate…overtaking blah blah. Except it doesn’t. Only in the body of the article does it fess up that it’s a daily rate. Reading the headline only, gives no hint.

        It’s gone viral on Twitter. The headline is wrong but how many bother to check the details. What is it about your cousins in the Old Country. We can’t trust the Daily Mail and now the Slippery Telegraph.

        https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/05/20/sweden-becomes-country-highest-coronavirus-death-rate-per-capita/

      • Ragnaar- It was the National Enquirer that finally told American that vice presidential nominee John Edwards got his girlfriend pregnant, during the campaign while his wife was dying of cancer.
        The New York Times and Washington Post spent the whole time running hagiographic tales about his deep devotion to his marriage.
        Blind squirrels, nuts, etc.

    • Matthew R Marler

      cerescokid: I doubt we will ever find out the actual death and case numbers from China but I’m more inclined to believe the 640,000 cases than the official number.

      A precedent: it took decades for outsiders to learn approximately how many people died in the famine that followed the “Great Leap Forward”. Estimates of the COVID-19 caused deaths in China are likely to be all over the place, based on disparate small sources of “evidence”.

  11. Very interesting and helpful. Thank you. I am sharing some of your observations on social media.

  12. WRT
    “UK’s coronavirus response repeats the errors of past crises”

    Conservation and the Misuse of Science
    Hedgehogs, Bats and Badgers

    Conclusion
    Whether it be hedgehogs, bats or badgers it would appear that SNH and others are happy to”fiddle” at taxpayers expense “while Rome burns” in terms of damage to human and animal health and to the economy. It is time that a stop was put to this form of self-indulgent and extravagant pseudo science.
    https://web.archive.org/web/20031130091451/http://www.land-care.org.uk/environment/current_topics/2003/april2003/conservation_science_15_04/conservation_science_15_04.htm

    How the members of the Independent
    Scientific Group on Cattle TB were appointed
    https://web.archive.org/web/20080317050356/http://www.land-care.org.uk/tb/current_topics/tb%202007/june%202007/comp_isg_22_06/comp_isg_22_06.html

    The “Independent Scientific Group” advises against badger cull as part of plan to control TB in cattle.
    A sad day for science, and for animal health that it is supposed to protect.
    https://web.archive.org/web/20080317050401/http://www.land-care.org.uk/tb/current_topics/tb%202007/june%202007/isg_badger_18_06/isg_badger_18_06.html

    Tuberculosis in Cattle: DEFRA in no hurry to review Strategy
    https://web.archive.org/web/20040831171022/http://www.land-care.org.uk/tb/current_topics/2003/march2003/defra_tb_strategy_10_03/defra_tb_strategy_10_03.htm

  13. call me a skeptic but – I’ve grown painfully aware of me and everyone I know being mostly wrong about mostly everything mostly all of the time so I guess it shouldn’t come as a shock to learn, according to the latest research, that we’re not getting covid from touching contaminated surfaces. We’re being infected by each other so wash your hands, sure… of course… I don’t know why it takes something like a Corona virus outbreak to learn that but… it ain’t ‘gonna help as far as covid-19 goes. The only thing that will help is wearing a mask – social distancing is BS.

  14. Meanwhile…in Sweden…

    I’m not particularly critical of Sweden’s approach. It’s one of the variety of bad choices.

    But when you look at the metric of deaths per capita, you will note that the rate of decline in Sweden is considerably lower than in Switzerland, the Netherlands, even France, and many, many other countries. Sweden is rising up the chart at a consistent pace.

    In fact, Sweden has had the higher per capita deaths in Europe over the last seven days. Even higher than the UK.

    Cross-country comparisons are of limited value. And the reasons for Sweden’s relatively slower decline than elsewhere are complicated. And there are necessarily tradeoffs in all of this, but you can’t even evaluate the tradeoffs if your vision is limited by your ideological blinders.

    • Joshua: But when you look at the metric of deaths per capita, you will note that the rate of decline in Sweden is considerably lower than in Switzerland

      True, but the initial rates of increase and the maximum daily new case and new death counts were much higher in Switzerland. I don’t know what the courses of case counts and death counts will be in a month’s time, or more, but the whole trajectories need to be compared, as well as the concomitant changes such as loss of economic productivity.

    • We all are going to get this. I was told we need to slow the peak to get ready. We did that. Is Sweden getting overwhelmed with this?

      We are all going to die. What do we do in the meantime? What we just did. Counting current deaths is just one part of complicted situation. Old people die all the time. Look down young people because of that? In what universe?

    • Don’t compare apples and kumquats. Sweden is much farther along in achieving herd immunity. Flattening the curve doesn’t reduce the area under the curve. So Sweden is in the second half while lockdown jurisdictions are still in the first quarter.

      • So – don’t compare across countries because they aren’t like…but look at Sweden and compare in ways that match the argument I want to make.

        Is that the logic?

  15. How Diet Is Driving COVID-19 Outcomes

    For many people, a poor outcome from COVID-19 is in part, preventable.
    Metabolic syndrome is associated with COVID-19 mortality and morbidity.
    Many mechanisms are conceived, though not strictly tested.
    In this way, COVID-19 is an accute-on-top-of-chronic condition.
    The same metabolic syndrome which worsens outcomes, may also prevent vaccines from being effective.

    The good news is than metabolic syndrome is reversible with diet and lifestyle change.

    • Curious George

      I love doctors who make an hour-long video rather than a transcript. Especially baffling for a NYTimes bestselling author.

    • “…thanks to the spread of the ultra-processed food…”

      My son the future scientist asks if I have any studies confirming my point of view? I say no.

      Still white flour is terrible for you. Eat sugar, it’s the same thing. Fiber and more fiber. Omega 3 and less Omega 6. Fish. Juice and frozen veggies. Moderation and lean to least processed foods all the time.

      This is of course, no regrets.

  16. People or jobs, or wealth? The government has to decide which to prioritize.

    The people can decide. And with somewhat independent states, counties and municipalities, the governments’ decisions, like the people’s decisions, do not all have to be the same.

    Anyone contemplating “borrowing wealth” to “help people” ought to give a lot more consideration than they do to the people whose work created that wealth in the first place, who are giving it up, and who will be required to work to pay off the debt in the future.

    The idea that the government has to decide everything is pernicious. In the US, the idea that the Federal Government has to decide everything contradicts the 9th and 10th amendments in the Bill of Rights.

    • Because my note was critical, I should add that the author lays out the problems well. His preference:
      The choices that have to be made

      We need to be prioritising work at present.

      And we need to keep trade alive.

      At the same time we also need to preserve the operational aspects of banking, as best we are able, because we cannot survive without it: those systems are the plumbing on which the economy runs. And because we have done no real banking reforms since 2008 that may yet require nationalisation of the whole banking sector fails as the property market collapses, and with it all the collateral on which banks have relied for around 85% of their loan books.

      But I stress, even if we are concerned that the property sector might collapse that is not a reason to priorities the interests of landlords. They have to be at the bottom of the pile for support right now. In other words, the government has everything the wrong way round.

      He does use “government” the singular, whereas in the US the plural state governors and municipal mayors and managers have not all taken the same path.

    • “….the people whose work created that wealth in the first place,… “

      • Half the people in the country have no idea who creates wealth and that the past economic success is no guarantee of the same success in the future. They think our standard of living is because of the Federal Government, The Tooth Fairy and Tinker Bell. They have no concept of the essentials of Capitalism, or an understanding of economics or business, not a clue about the banking system or the role of the Federal Reserve or the importance of capital formation and the capital markets. They believe profits are evil and the only way to solve deficits is to increase marginal tax rates. The good times just happen.

        What other explanation is there for such a high level of support for Socialism.

      • jungletrunks

        “Half the people in the country have no idea who creates wealth”

        And we know where these people align politically. But AOC has an economics degree ya know; she aims to buck the late Iron Lady’s logic and wisdom, as Thatcher stated: “The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money”.

        To put some context to what it means when the government spends 1 trillion dollars; a trillion seconds falls a bit shy of 32,000 years. The U.S. has a deep well economically, but exploiting a resource too aggressively always leads to depletion.

    • “and who will be required to work to pay off the debt in the future.”

      Nobody. That’s another lie. There is no wealth to borrow, any more than there is any to save. It’s always a current production issue. It’s always about ensuring what can be done today is done today and the capacity of somebody doings something today isn’t lost forever.

      For every financial debt there is a financial asset. When the asset is ‘spent’ the debt will automatically be repaid. It’s nothing more than bookkeeping and nothing to be scared of

      Here’s how:

      And also why “debt” always sells, and why there is no need for it in the first place.

  17. Summer of (Pandemic) Love

    Interesting retrospective.

    Proportionate US death toll would be 170,000 for COVID-19, which we’re still shy of, but of course, we’re not done yet.

    Still, was the shutdown a huge mistake?

    • Given this tidbit that she included, it’s fair to ask if locking down a densely packed city was ever even possible:
      “The #COVID19 “6-feet rule” falls apart with even a slight breeze https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/5.0011960?download=true… based upon extensive simulations of coughing and airborne droplet transmissions (e.g. saliva can travel 18 feet in 5 sec w/ a bit of wind)”

      New York City had 8 million people sharing transportation and elevators. This pandemic did what they all do- decimated the old and sick in densely populated places. Particularly those that were cold in February/March.

      • “Two government doctors, not even epidemiologists” — Richard Hatchett and Carter Mecher, who worked for the George W. Bush administration — “hatched the idea [of using government-enforced social distancing] and hoped to try it out on the next virus.” We are, in effect, Tucker said, part of a grand social experiment.

        Do we have W to blame for this?

      • probably, but definitions of words and phrases are getting fluid- sometimes for political reasons.
        I practice “social distancing” at stores that are open. There is no scientific reason for it to be safer 6-feet away from people for an hour in a grocery store than any other building.

        There’s no reason to believe “social distancing” will be effective for someone who has to take the elevator from their 12th floor apartment in order to get on the crowded sidewalk that leads to the tiny grocery store. And they cannot “lock down” for 3 months without starving to death. Conversely. the suburbanite who needs only to stroll out her door to the car with the hepa-filtered cabin to drive to the Mega Mart or Big Restaurant can “social distance” all day without the slightest economic impact.

  18. DATE NEW CASES INCREASE % # TESTS
    5/10/2020 24,835 -2,878 -10.3 287,829
    5/11/2020 21,122 -3,713 -14.9 540,847
    5/12/2020 19,534 -1,588 -7.5 164,139
    5/13/2020 23,704 4,170 21.3 340,173
    5/14/2020 21,710 -1,994 -8.4 340,721
    5/15/2020 29,276 7,566 25.8 385,164
    5/16/2020 25,812 -3,464 -11.8 433,742
    5/17/2020 20,716 -5,096 -19.7 860,733
    5/18/2020 18,631 -2,103 -10.1 576,617
    5/19/2020 23,764 5,133 27.5 477,701
    5/20/2020 18,882 -4,882 20.5 357,771
    I apoligize for what I said yesterday. I thought I heard what I said but I was wrong. We did 10,000 tests less than yesterday.We have 4 days left to the end of the 14 days.
    MORE TESTS

  19. Permit me to offer a feel good.

    Uncertainty regarding immune response, antibody generation and persistence as well as antibody mediated enhancement is being addressed.

    https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0092-8674%2820%2930610-3

  20. 5/13/20 Coronavirus (COVID 19) Grand Rounds –
    Stanford Department of Medicine

    Excellent presentation on the challenges of SARS2 vaccine development, manufacturing and distribution by Dr. Phil Pang, MD, PhD Chief Medical Office, VIR Biotechnology.

  21. I thought I’d share this .pdf file that looks at Covid-19 statistics against malaria. It’s not sophisticated, but the visual comparison is pretty obvious. https://www.dropbox.com/s/ahzp8vglyt9hb5v/COVID.pdf?dl=0

  22. “Malaysia has used hydroxychloroquine since the first wave of the Covid-19 outbreak. The recovery rate there now exceeds 80%. The country of over 30 million people only has 1,247 active cases”.

    Wow. Does that mean about 20% of infected are dying in Malaysia?

    “New study from S. Korea finds HCQ +AZ (or other antibiotic) significantly reduces time to viral clearance and hospital stay in moderate covid-19 patients compared to both conservative treatment and Lopinavir-ritonavir.”

    Unfortunately the core group from which the conclusion are drawn only consists of 22 people and 21 of them are women. Almost none have preexisting conditions. I doubt we can generalize a lot from that.

    “Coronavirus did NOT come from animals in Wuhan market’: Landmark study suggests it was taken into the area by someone already infected.”

    The actual paper behind this story suggests SARS-CoV-2 might be a mutation branching from 2003 SARS-CoV outbreak.

    “More evidence vitamin D can help against coronavirus: Study finds patients with a severe deficiency are TWICE as likely to die from COVID-19.”

    Without supplementation Vitamin D is a proxy for sunlight exposure which may have benefits beyond Vitamin D. However, I have thought all along that Vitamin D was the most commonsense thing to take if someone is not currently taking it. Low risk, low cost, and probable benefits for most people beyond any benefit for COVID-19.

    • If Vitamin D does nothing against the virus, the benefits of ending all Vitamin D deficiencies will exceed the costs of all of the directly related virus deaths.

  23. “Comparison of France to Marseille where people are being treated with HCQ+AZ. 0.5% fatality rate compared to 21.6% nationwide. http://francesoir.fr/efficacite-des-mesures-un-point-de-vue-factuel-marseille-30-fois-moins-de-chance-de-mourir-du-covid

    My foray into the French language ended in the third grade when I consistently did not respond to “attention”

  24. from Models as Public Troubles: Days after the UK policy change from mitigation to suppression, which holds out hope of a coping NHS, COVID-19 is reconstituted by the NHS as no longer a ‘high consequence infectious disease’. In response to the emerging controversy, Neil Ferguson also takes to Twitter, March 26, in an attempt to ‘clear up some confusion’ that ‘we have substantially revised our assessments of mortality impact’ which ‘is not the case’. An element in the controversy is modellers holding on to the ‘fact’ that their numbers have not changed, and that the models are not new, but that what is fluid is how the models are being publicly communicated (Financial Times Alphaville, 2020b; National Review, 2020; Horton, 2020).

    An intriguing study of “science&society&science&society”. An informed and enhanced (imo) sociological perspective.

    Among other details, it is interesting how much scientific research, opinion, and policy debate is reported through Twitter.

    • Next they will report that Trump inappropriately grabbed the anonymous Kim, 32 years ago, in a dark alley, in some city.

      • I’ve had the hair stand up on the back of my neck only twice in my life. The first time was when I was duck hunting alone on a river bank and I surprised a family of raccoons that were 6 feet from my head. The second time I was walking down a dark deserted street at 3 am in Bangkok and a husky voice softly called out from an alley “Geeeeee Eyeeeee.”

    • Politicised medicine..

  25. Hmmm.

    So Iaonnidis and co-authors are out there speculating, without providing any details or data, that their surveys undersampled people who would test positive.

    Here’s a Baysean analysis of that question.

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.08459

  26. I apologize to all lost faith in you.Evidently they put what you did yesterday in today’s numbers.

  27. Right now tomorrow”s number ot tests is 1,276,062. OH ME OF LITTLE FAITH.

  28. Pingback: Judith Curry’s Covid-19 Discussion Thread: “Interesting papers I’ve spotted over the past week”-May 19, 2020…(Like, Covid-19 fatality rate remains 1% in Senegal which continues broad use of hydroxychloroquine “despite warnings

  29. Oops.

    > STOCKHOLM (Reuters) – A Swedish study found that just 7.3 percent of Stockholmers developed COVID-19 antibodies by late April, which could fuel concern that a decision not to lock down Sweden against the pandemic may bring little herd immunity in the near future.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-sweden-strategy/swedish-antibody-study-shows-long-road-to-immunity-as-covid-19-toll-mounts-idUSKBN22W2YC

  30. Rapid peer review of Ioannidis’ paper:

  31. Rapid peer review of Ioannidis’ paper:

  32. A poll of likely voters in selected swing states.

    Will there be a second wave of COVID19?

    Definitely/Probably. DEM/LEAN DEM. 94%. GOP/ LEAN GOP. 21%

    Probably Not. DEM/LEAN DEM. 1%. GOP/LEAN GOP. 29%

    Perhaps depends on what the meaning of the word WAVE is.
    Also, which source of biased news you are addicted to.
    https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/20/voters-divided-over-coronavirus-cnbcchange-research-poll-finds.html

  33. “Smokers less likely to fall ill with COVID19”

    The most counter intuitive statement of the pandemic.

  34. Have stayed out of this as very impressed with Rudd’s early informative and prognostic writings.
    However a Sweden Switzerland comparison has been raised elsewhere and I felt a couple of important points are being overlooked .
    ” Sweden has managed to hold the epidemic at a steady level, a little over 50 new cases per day per million population. That’s enough to strain the health care system, but not break it. What they’re doing now only holds the outbreak at bay; loosening will let it escape.”
    There are so many imponderables to consider.
    Tamino and the Swiss put a good case for strict controls to reduce and hopefully eliminate the disease.
    New Zealand even better.
    China also.
    But being persnickety as usual I would still like to raise the following points for consideration.
    1. Which will be the long term best path for the people and the country.
    This does depend on a lot of variables including both vaccines and mutation of the virus.
    2. Why the immense differences in both true infection rates and true death rates in different countries to date.
    3. What will the depth of penetration be for the population in general and for individual countries specifically.
    This is not being touched on but is vitally important for proper use of the statistics as Tamino would possibly agree.
    Finally for the statisticians, Testing has both sensitivity and specificity rates and it is amazing [unbelievable actually but great] that so many tests are now being produced in such a short time. However it comes with a kicker.
    False positives are an issue.
    Not so much in sick people where a high level of correlation is expected and a misdiagnosis is not going to alter the management for people who are severely ill.
    But in the issue of general population testing in a resolving situation the likelihood of any positive test being truly positive, Say in New Zealand is highly unlikely.
    Would like to comment further on Sweden Switzerland alternatives if possible.”

    • False negatives are a real thing as well. I was just on the phone with a client who has an employee showing all the symptoms, but a negative test result. She doesn’t believe the test and is staying far away from anyone.
      But others might consider a negative test result to be permission to visit grandma.

      Interesting that you could argue that she “trusts science” with either decision and that she “ignores science” with either decision. Funny how that works.

  35. While experimenting with the properties of conventional epidemiological equations, I observed a somewhat unexpected behavior wrt social distance modeling by changing the I->S feedback rate constant, k1.

    Abruptly decreasing this rate prior to the epidemiological maximum shows a perhaps anticipated decrease in infections followed by a secondary peak should excessive constraint have been applied. When, however, constraints are altered after the peak has passed, only minor changes are seen even when this rate is doubled, a shift of at most a few days in the recovery period. (The conventional parameter, Ro, equals 10 k1.) Details are in the Notebook.

    Has anyone noted or suggested this quantitative effect?

  36. Video where epidemiologists go into seroprevalence sampling, and discuss the Santa Clara study in particular. Bottom line, the. Santa Clara study is garbage.

    Real stain on Ioannidis’ reputation. It’s a travesty that they launched a massive media campaign based on the preprint for that study.

    • If you have anything more definitive I will take a look. I don’t think this Swedish number is accurate. Nic just explained to you that its actually 20%. Twitter is a garbage forum. It is possible that herd immunity can happen when 20% are infected and recovered as Nic’s model suggests.

      Further is those 20% are concentrated among those most susceptible, the apparent IFR can be much higher than the age adjusted IFR.

  37. These people must be crazy. Haven’t they heard about the warnings that HCQ “touted” by Orange Man Bad can kill you, dead?

    Global clinical trial of 40,000+ healthcare workers begins to test in UK if chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine can prevent COVID-19

    https://www.tropmedres.ac/news/COPCOV-begins-to-test-in-UK-if-chloroquine-and-hydroxychloroquine-prevent-Covid-19

    • Obviously, the risk to people who are sick with COVID, or old, or old and sick with COVID, or with comorbidities, or sick with COVID and with comorbidities, or old and with comorbidities, or sick with COVID and with comorbidities and who are old, are different than just a notion of “Just take it, wuddya have to lose?” ignorance coming out of the most powerful person in the world with millions of dedicated followers who look to him for leadership.

      But we certainly shouldn’t expect toadies and sycophants (i. e., cult members) to acknowledge those differences, eh?

      • Don Monfort

        You’re stuttering, while lying. That’s at least a misdemeanor. Doctors all over the world had been giving HCQ to COVID 19 patients, old, co-morbid with blah blah blah, before POTUS and Most Powerful Man in the World, Donald J. Trump, ever heard of it. We all know that you want it to fail at saving lives, because Orange Man Bad. How can you stand yourself?

      • Curious George

        “Just take it, wuddya have to lose?” Joshua – please explain what’s wrong with it.

      • George –

        We can’t even really know yet what level of risk it has to people suffering from COVID, particularly if they are of advanced age or with comorbidities.

        So the risks as compared to non-infected, younger people people who just take it as a profylaxis is unknown.

        Use as a widespread profylaxis is also not without risk. No way to know yet if it is worth any benefit.

        So Trump saying “Whattya got to lose?” may be sub-optimal (or beneficial) but definitely misleading. He doesn’t know. So it’s a misleading question. It implies that he knows there’s nothing to lose. He doesn’t know that.

        IMO, better he just stick to something like, consult with your doctor.”

    • Don Monfort: https://www.tropmedres.ac/news/COPCOV-begins-to-test-in-UK-if-chloroquine-and-hydroxychloroquine-prevent-Covid-19

      thank you for the link.

      I have the classic cognitive dissonants (or dissonant cognitions): I am hoping for a good positive result, but expecting a negligible effect tied up in confounders.

      • Don Monfort

        You are amazing. All the complaining you have done about docs not conducting formal randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trials, you just learn of a huge Gold Standard trial, and you immediately conjure up a negligible effect tied up in confounders. You are confounded.

        What confounders do you imagine could confound a Gold Standard trial involving 40,000 health care professionals with a binary outcome: they either get sick with COVID 19, or they don’t. I know you will think of something. I’ll get you started:

        Well maybe the randomization is not really randomly randomized, maybe one arm is taller than the other, maybe one arm is seeing sicker patients who shed more viruses, maybe they forgot something yadda yadda yadda

        Anyway, if this huge Gold Standard trial doesn’t do it for you there are about 200 other trials underway.

      • Don Monfort: You are amazing.

        Yes. I hope for good supportive results, but have much experience with disappointing results, and the evidence regarding HCQ to date is poor.

        As you noted, the evidence against comes from studies with biased assignment: HCQ given preferentially to people in advanced stages of the disease. So you know about confounders. They can cut both ways.

      • Don Monfort

        You must not have read the protocol of this trial. Or, you don’t understand it. Or, maybe 40,000 subjects is not big enough. Or, whatever. For someone who is always harping on the necessity of clinical trials, you indicate having very little confidence in trials being able to produce reliable results.

      • Don Monfort: you indicate having very little confidence in trials being able to produce reliable results.

        Led by the University of Oxford and Wellcome supported Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit (MORU) in Bangkok, Thailand, the COPCOV study is a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial that will enrol 40,000+ frontline healthcare workers and staff from Europe, Africa, Asia and South America who have close contact with patients with COVID-19 to determine definitively if chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are effective in preventing COVID-19.

        That sounds good if they are able to maintain the random assignment and double-blinding throughout the study. A propensity score analysis will show whether they likely obtained the balance of confounders that they aimed for. Random assignment does not guarantee a lack of balanced confounders, only that confounding is not built-in. RCTs are not exempt from Murphy’s Law.

        Confidence that HCQ works is different from confidence that an RCT can get a clear result. I am more confident of the latter than the former, but our confidence as observers isn’t worth anything.

      • Don Monfort

        “RCTs are not exempt from Murphy’s Law.” I bet they know that.

        Unless the clinicians involved are significantly incompetent, the size of the trial should ameliorate possible effects of minor confounding whatevers.

        One big issue I see is that the health care professional subjects will know whether they are being given HCQ, or a placebo, as I would. I’ll let you work out what could result from that.

        Anyway, at the end of the trial they will have somewhat less than 20,000 subjects in each of the two arms. If HCQ works as I hope and anticipate, there will be a clear difference in the rate of COVID 19 infections, between the treatment arm and placebo arm. But I expect to know the answer before this trial is halfway finished, from the results of some of the 200 other ongoing trials.

        If good HCQ results start rolling in, they will eliminate the placebo arm of the trial we are discussing and give everybody the miracle cure “touted” by POTUS Donald J. Trump.

        My confidence as an observer of drug trials has been worth a lot to me. Just this Monday, I sold my Sorrento stock for a huge profit. It’s a good company. I’ll probably buy back in when the price is sensible. That’s how we do it, mattie.

  38. If you own any stocks of Chinese companies listed on U.S exchanges, you should read this:

    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/bill-that-could-delist-chinese-companies-from-us-stock-exchanges-to-see-swift-passage-in-house-analyst-says-2020-05-21

    Finally looks like something is going to be done about the lack of compliance with U.S. securities accounting requirements that Chinese companies have gotten away with forever. The Obama-Biden syndicate continued to give them a pass after this big and continuing scandal blew up (see recent Luckin Coffee):

    https://www.marketplace.org/2018/04/02/china-hustle-calls-more-regulations-foreign-companies/

    I told you all about this back in the day. We made a lot of money shorting that crap. Is this another golden opportunity?

  39. DATE NEW CASES increase % # TESTS
    5/10/2020 24,835 -2,878 -10.3 287,829
    5/11/2020 21,122 -3,713 -14.9 540,847
    5/12/2020 19,534 -1,588 -7.5 164,139
    5/13/2020 23,704 4,170 21.3 340,173
    5/14/2020 21,710 -1,994 -8.4 340,721
    5/15/2020 29,276 7,566 25.8 385,164
    5/16/2020 25,812 -3,464 -11.8 433,742
    5/17/2020 20,716 -5,096 -19.7 860,733
    5/18/2020 18,631 -2,103 -10.1 576,617
    5/19/2020 23,764 5,133 27.5 477,701
    5/20/2020 18,882 -4,882 20.5 357,771
    5/21/2020 24,816 5,234 31.4 1,501,704
    WOW WOW WOW
    24,816 is 1.6% of total tests

  40. At 12:00 PM CDT the total tests was 14,282,478. Now at 12:45 PM CDT the total tests is 13,204,356. I believ somebody out there does not want the general public to know how well you are doing!!!

  41. Here’s what Sweden’s first coronavirus antibody tests tell us
    https://www.thelocal.se/20200520/heres-what-swedens-first-coronavirus-antibody-tests-tell-us

  42. The Unspoken Reason for Lockdowns
    Governments cannot openly admit that the “controlled easing” of COVID-19 lockdowns in fact means controlled progress toward so-called herd immunity to the virus. Much better, then, to pursue this objective silently, under a cloud of obfuscation, and hope that a vaccine will arrive before most of the population gets infected.
    https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/governments-cannot-admit-covid19-herd-immunity-objective-by-robert-skidelsky-2020-05

    Dr. Jay Bhattacharya: His new MLB COVID-19 Study and the Dilemma of the Lockdown

  43. Exclusive: A quarter of Americans are hesitant about a coronavirus vaccine – Reuters/Ipsos poll
    A quarter of Americans have little or no interest in taking a coronavirus vaccine, a Reuters/Ipsos poll published on Thursday found, with some voicing concern that the record pace at which vaccine candidates are being developed could compromise safety.
    While health experts say a vaccine to prevent infection is needed to return life to normal, the survey points to a potential trust issue for the Trump administration already under fire for its often contradictory safety guidance during the pandemic.
    Some 36% of respondents said they would be less willing to take a vaccine if U.S. President Donald Trump said it was safe, compared with only 14% who would be more interested.
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-vaccine-poll-exclu/exclusive-a-quarter-of-americans-are-hesitant-about-a-coronavirus-vaccine-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKBN22X19G

    Divided by COVID-19: Democratic U.S. areas hit three times as hard as Republican ones
    As America’s response to the coronavirus pandemic splits along partisan lines, a Reuters analysis may help explain why: Death rates in Democratic areas are triple those in Republican ones
    By Wednesday, U.S. counties that voted for Democrat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election reported 39 coronavirus deaths per 100,000 residents, according to an analysis of demographic and public health data.
    In counties that voted for Republican Donald Trump, 13 of every 100,000 people had died from the virus.
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-divided/divided-by-covid-19-democratic-u-s-areas-hit-three-times-as-hard-as-republican-ones-idUSKBN22X14I

    • More Than Stimulus Checks: How Covid-19 Relief Might Include Mandated Vaccines
      Should a coronavirus vaccine be developed, students may hesitate to return to campus if their peers refuse to get vaccinated. But refusing a coronavirus vaccine may be illegal.
      “If you refuse to be vaccinated, the state has the power to literally take you to a doctor’s office and plunge a needle into your arm,” explained Alan Dershowitz in an interview earlier this week.
      https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherrim/2020/05/20/more-than-stimulus-checks-how-covid-19-relief-might-include-mandated-vaccines/#23e5cb547992

      • The real question in this possibility is this:

        If you are vaccinated, why are you afraid of those who are not ?

        Surely it’s not because you think the vaccine may not be effective. If it is not, you remain as unprotected as those who are not vaccinated. If it is effective, those who are unvaccinated cannot harm you.

        [I do vaccinate since I prefer not to catch whatever nasty the vaccine is meant to protect. Those who prefer not to are entitled to their choice since it does not harm the vaccinated]

    • Curious George

      “Democratic counties in 36 of the 50 U.S. states collectively reported higher death rates than Republican counties.” Is there any other factor than avoidance of HCQ in play?

  44. Sunetra Gupta: Covid-19 is on the way out
    The author of the Oxford model defends her view that the virus has passed through the UK’s population
    https://unherd.com/2020/05/oxford-doubles-down-sunetra-gupta-interview/

  45. > Trump says he won’t wear a mask in front of cameras

    Doesn’t want his orange makeup to get smudged.

    • He’s trolling the media by not wearing a mask. The first step of breaking from the left and right is to say no. It is to disagree. To not care about criticism.

  46. Easier format for reading the deconstruction of Ioannidis’ meta-analysis:

    https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1262956011872280577.html

    • Nobody is going to read that. Your vendetta against Dr. Ioannidis is not interesting, in any format.

  47. Curious George

    “Around one in six people in London … have already had coronavirus” [https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-52749186]
    Remarkably, it is also a ratio of infected sailors on the USS Theodore Roosevelt. Are we sure that the virus infects everybody?

  48. The LWN’s will be embarrassed when HCQ proves to be a valuable treatment in the not-too-distant future. The press will try to bury it, but it won’t work. We are on to them :)

  49. Your link is very weak Josh. Many of the “objections” were things Ioannidis tried to correct for. Ioannidis is widely respected. I’m more likely to believe him than this twitter tweeter. People who are very competent often avoid twitter because its a garbage forum.

  50. Simple numbers:

    … low estimate of 0.18% makes MUCH more sense than a minimum of 0.02% for IFR

    Why? Well, take New York. ~16,000 deaths in a city of 8.4 million means that if every single person has been infected the IFR would be 0.19%

    Now, everyone calls NYC an outlier, and perhaps it is, but if you repeat this calculation for other places in the States, the same chilling thing happens:

    Massachusetts: 0.9%
    New Jersey: 0.12%
    Connecticut: 0.1%

    The same is true of other places overseas – Lombardy has a total death toll of 0.16%, Madrid is around the same, even London is above 0.1% dead due to COVID-19

    It seems INCREDIBLY unlikely, at this point, for the IFR to be below 0.1%

    —————-

    Get that? If EVERYONE in those places were infected, the low bound would be higher than John’s. And in NY, some significant % has left the city, so that’s even an underestimate.

    For the country as a whole, if you were to assume a 6% infection rate, just based on the deaths we’ve had already you’d get to a 0.5% IFR.

    Watch this is you sill think these people are doing decent work – it’s a stain on John’s good career.

    They had a participation rate of 7% for their Facebook recruitment. They assume the participants were representative – a dubious assumption (if only because people had to drive to get to the testing sites – but there could be many reasons). If they weren’t representative, then their CI could go from 0.1% – 93.1%

    It’s ugly.

    • Not that it’s to your point but 16,000 for NYC is actually over 20,000. Go to worldometer then USA then NY then to counties then add up 5 boroughs in NYC, including Richmond (Staten Island). I wouldn’t want Son of Mario to pull a fast one on you.

    • Well Josh, There is a lot of data out there that seems inconsistent with low IFR’s. That much is true.
      1. Most of it is from hot spots where the medical system was strained.
      2. Not a lot of attention has been paid to how accurate the death counts are. In New York City there are about 16,000 test positive deaths and 4700 “presumed” deaths.
      3. We simply don’t know how many died “with” covid19 and how many died “because of” covid19. Since this disease seems to strike those who are already ill very hard, that becomes a judgment call.
      4. In any case, reports indicates that Birx seems to believe that the death numbers are inflated perhaps by 25%.
      5. Recently Colorado (Dem governor) revised their data and lowered the covid19 death toll by 25%.
      6. It’s quite possible that in New York, physicians simply didn’t have time to thoughtfully fill out death certificates and that in any case, charts might not have been well maintained making it difficult to accurately record cause of death. I think statistics would be more accurate in a place like Florida where there are orders of magnitude fewer deaths.
      7. I read somewhere that there were financial incentives for hospitals to record deaths as due to covid19 because reimbursement rates were higher. Haven’t verified that so its a single source.

      So I don’t know the answer here, but I think part is the answer is that death numbers tend to get inflated in hot spots and may be 25% too high across the board.

  51. Seroprevalence:

    Spain ~5%
    Italy ~5%
    Sweden ~5%
    Denmark ~1%
    Norway < 1%

  52. Postmortem examinations following COVID-19 deaths:
    https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2766557?widget=personalizedcontent&previousarticle=2766556

    Only 10 decedents, but I thought it remarkable that there was no liver damage or kidney damage of the sort that would pervert HCQ pharmacokinetics.

    • I was going to post this last week, but I didn’t know if anybody would be interested in gory details w/photos. Just for you:

      If link doesn’t work, youtube title:

      12 Autopsy Cases Reveal TRUTH About How Patients Die From Coronavirus | COVID-19

  53. This notion thsr COVID-19 is just like the seasonal flu is nuts.

    If NYC has 22k deaths out of 8 million people (actually, fewer people, as many left the city), the IFR is 0.275%.

    IF EVERY PERSON IN NYC HAS BEEN INFECTED!

    If 20% have been infected, as shown in the seroprevalence survey a whole back the rate is 1.37%.

    If 40% have been infected, it’s 0.69%

    If 60% have been infected, it’s 0.45%

    If no one else in the country dies, and 5% of the country has been infected, the IFR is 0.61%.

    If 10% of the country has been infected, the IFR is 0.30%

    Do you think 10% of the entire country has been infected – 33,000,000 people? They say that the asymptomatic rate might be 50%. We have 1.6 million cases identified (some small % of which would be asymptomatic). Do you think we have identified only one out of 20 cases?

    This is simple math. What is wrong with you people?

  54. Seroprevalence has Italy at 5%. With 32,000 dead that equals a 1.0% IFR,

    If no one else dies.

  55. Seroprevalence has Spain at 5%. If no one else dies, that’s an IFR of 1.12%

    If no one else dies.

  56. Seroprevalence has Denmark at 1%.

    If no one else dies that puts the IFR at 0.96%

    If no one else dies.

    Double the seroprevalence. That puts the IFR at 0.48%

    In Denmark. If no one else dies.

  57. The CDC has best estimate of a CASE FATALITY of 0.4%

    Their worst case has the CFR – not IFR – at 1%.

    I certainly hope they’re right.

    • It’s difficult not to draw the analogy of 1968.

      COVID-19 CFR may be similar or lower than that of the Hong Kong flu.

      If so, the ‘lockdown’ reaction may indeed be a panicked reaction which has ultimately caused net harm.

      Of course, the human population is older and fatter than it was in 1968.

      We can’t change the past, but young people are paying dearly for saving relatively few if even one life-year of the aged and infirm.

      • TE –

        Seems to me much easier to get a feel for a case fatality rate at this early stage than an infection fatality rate, and looking at the rates with the numbers identified thus far they seem waaay low.

        Just based in the raw numbers, I find that figure implausible. And it certainly seems to lie well outside most of the analyses I’ve seen. But I’m also reluctant to just dismiss what the CDC has to say.

      • I commented on this above. I believe that in Italy for example, where the hospitals were overwhelmed, IFR’s will be much higher.

  58. Tamino discusses comparisons of different methods.
    This led to my musings on the issue.
    ” recent measures in Sweden to loosen yet more, are ill advised. What they’re doing now only holds the outbreak at bay; loosening will let it escape”’.
    recent reports suggest this may be happening but there are some positive aspects.
    To recap, The more infection there is, in that part of the population prone to infection, the sooner the virus will be able to slow down due to the human immune system.
    There are at least 2 different factors at play to consider in looking at an approach which will lessen the disease and still save elderly people’s lives if we are unable to develop a vaccine.
    This is the critical issue.
    Containment.
    Isolation.
    Herd Immunity of sorts.
    Degradation of the disease by mutation.
    A vaccine.
    Or other non vaccine treatments that might mitigate the viral effects.

    I am sure there are others but the what if is if we do not develop an effective usable vaccine or vaccines.

    In that case the Sweden /Switzerland comparison you discuss assumes vital importance.

    The proper strategy pari passu is the Swedish model not the Swiss.
    All your comments are on target but for the fact that if we cannot get a vaccine we remain permanently at risk of reinfections. The Swiss model does not obviate this, it makes it worse.
    The Swedish model offers some hope of eventual recovery to a near normal lifestyle whereas the Swiss model puts there country at permanent risk of serious future outbreaks and the continuation of severe restrictions on peoples lives..

    The best model is as always a combination of the best from both models.
    Let the younger safe population get exposed to and recover from what is in their cases no more than a bad cold.
    Keep the elderly and at risk populations in the more socially isolated lifestyle.
    Yes there will be increased deaths from the corona vurus in the short and medium time frames for the first 3-12 months.
    But less deaths and poverty and lack of medical treatment forgetting totally about economic devastation. After 12 months the herd immunity will mean seasonally adjusted less deaths and smaler outbreaks that will continue to plague a country like Switzerland for many years.

    Like so many topics people, like mathematics, split into 2 main groups in their response to any dilemma. Fight or flight. Sanitise or exposure. It is almost impossible to change the gut feelings to danger that we show or the divarication until the benefits of one or other approach become more evident.
    In my opinion the answers will not become evident for 2 years but I expect the greater herd immunity of those countries who knowingly or unknowingly exposed themselves to a greater amount of virus in the population must, medically, do better in the long run.

    Finally there is a chance that the virus may mutate to less virulent forms * but it is more likely to do this in the setting of widespread exposure to develop more of the less virulent forms. An unexpected blessing and reason to encourage some controlled spread.

    * Yes. but more virulent is less likely.
    Thank you for your presentation.

    Hope you do not mind comments crossing sites when relevant, Judith.

  59. “A recent review that included 11,321 people from 14 countries demonstrated that supplementing with vitamin D decreased the risk of acute respiratory infections (ARI) in both those who were deficient in vitamin D and those with adequate levels.”
    https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/vitamin-d-coronavirus

    I do not understand why the right is not hammering on this? Who is against sufficient vitamin D levels?

  60. The “Wearing a mask can reduce coronavirus transmission by 75% [link]” is a study in HAMSTERS.

    I was once a “Hamster Rancher” — known in the NY area wholesale pet business as “The Hamster Man”. In those years I raised untold thousands of hamsters — and have never known one hamster to sneeze…..

    I have serious doubts that hamsters are wearing masks.

    • The Study – Wearing a mask can reduce coronavirus transmission by 75% [link] –

      If the risk of transmission of Covid19 is moderate or high in the particular environment, then a 75% reduction in transmission is probably a valid estimate. If the risk of transmission of the virus is low (or non existent ) in the partiular environment, then the 75% reduction is probably very over stated. Even if true, if in a low risk environment, the marginal benefit of wearing a mask is extremely small.

      In the mask is providing a moderate to high level of marginal benefit in the particular environment , then the risk of transmission that environment is high enough that that particular eniromnet should be closed.

      • Kip Hansen

        Joe ==> How they would have established this using Hamsters as study subjects I can’t fathom…..and I know far more about hamsters than I ever wanted to know.

      • joe dallas

        reply to Kip – I concur the use of hampsters is probably not a good test comparison for humans.

        I was attempting to convey the point that
        A) If the mask is providing any benefit beyond trivial, then that environment should be closed to the general public.
        B) If the mask is providing only a trivial marginal benefit, then there is no real need for a mask in that environment.

        In otherwords, in most environments, the mask is providing little, if any, additional benefit beyond a trivial marginal benefit.

        One point I failed to mention – If a person is infected, then wearing a mask protects others, but is very bad for the infected person. The infected person needs as much clean air / oxygen to breathe. Breathing through a mask, reduces overall air intake, increases breathing of previously exhaled co2 and lowers oxygen intake from the normal 21% down to probably 18%.

    • Robert Austin

      Kip,
      The hamsters were not wearing masks, the “masks” were put over their cages. What a farce! A mask placed over the face is subject to the high positive and negative pressures of respiration. One can literally suck or blow those sub 2.5 micron virus particles through the mask with almost no restriction. Confidence in the efficacy of masks may lead to over-confidence that social distancing is for those without masks.

      • Robert ==> Thanks goodness! I was worried that the poor hamsters were being force to wear a mask if they left their cages……

  61. Latest from The Lancet:https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0140-6736%2820%2931180-6

    Abstract: Methods We did a multinational registry analysis of the use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19. The registry comprised data from 671 hospitals in six continents. We included patients hospitalised between Dec 20, 2019, and April 14, 2020, with a positive laboratory finding for SARS-CoV-2. Patients who received one of the treatments of interest within 48 h of diagnosis were included in one of four treatment groups (chloroquine alone, chloroquine with a macrolide, hydroxychloroquine alone, or hydroxychloroquine with a
    macrolide), and patients who received none of these treatments formed the control group. Patients for whom one of the treatments of interest was initiated more than 48 h after diagnosis or while they were on mechanical ventilation, as well as patients who received remdesivir, were excluded. The main outcomes of interest were in-hospital mortality and the occurrence of de-novo ventricular arrhythmias (non-sustained or sustained ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation).

    Findings 96032 patients (mean age 53·8 years, 46·3% women) with COVID-19 were hospitalised during the study period and met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 14 888 patients were in the treatment groups (1868 received
    chloroquine, 3783 received chloroquine with a macrolide, 3016 received hydroxychloroquine, and 6221 received hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide) and 81 144 patients were in the control group. 10698 (11·1%) patients died in hospital. After controlling for multiple confounding factors (age, sex, race or ethnicity, body-mass index, underlying cardiovascular disease and its risk factors, diabetes, underlying lung disease, smoking, immunosuppressed condition, and baseline disease severity), when compared with mortality in the control group (9·3%), hydroxychloroquine
    (18·0%; hazard ratio 1·335, 95% CI 1·223–1·457), hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide (23·8%; 1·447, 1·368–1·531), chloroquine (16·4%; 1·365, 1·218–1·531), and chloroquine with a macrolide (22·2%; 1·368, 1·273–1·469) were each independently associated with an increased risk of in-hospital mortality. Compared with the control group (0·3%), hydroxychloroquine (6·1%; 2·369, 1·935–2·900), hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide (8·1%; 5·106, 4·106–5·983), chloroquine (4·3%; 3·561, 2·760–4·596), and chloroquine with a macrolide (6·5%; 4·011, 3·344–4·812) were independently associated with an increased risk of de-novo ventricular arrhythmia during hospitalisation.

    Interpretation We were unable to confirm a benefit of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, when used alone or with a macrolide, on in-hospital outcomes for COVID-19. Each of these drug regimens was associated with decrease

    Part of the propensity score analysis (do check table 2):

    For each treatment group, a separate matched control was identified using exact and propensity-score matched criteria with a calliper of 0·001. This method was used to provide a close approximation of demographics,
    comorbidities, disease severity, and baseline medications between patients. The propensity score was based on the following variables: age, BMI, gender, race or ethnicity, comorbidities, use of ACE inhibitors, use of statins, use of angiotensin receptor blockers, treatment with other antivirals, qSOFA score of less than 1, and SPO2 of less than 94% on room air. The patients were well matched, with standardised mean difference estimates of less than
    10% for all matched parameters.

    • And another one that doesn’t ….

      https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext

      “In summary, this multinational, observational, real-world study of patients with COVID-19 requiring hospitalisation found that the use of a regimen containing hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine (with or without a macrolide) was associated with no evidence of benefit, but instead was associated with an increase in the risk of ventricular arrhythmias and a greater hazard for in-hospital death with COVID-19. These findings suggest that these drug regimens should not be used outside of clinical trials and urgent confirmation from randomised clinical trials is needed.”

      • Don Monfort

        toney, toney

        Very likely that is as far as you got. Down at the bottom, it says:

        “Our study has several limitations. The association of decreased survival with hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine treatment regimens should be interpreted cautiously. Due to the observational study design, we cannot exclude the possibility of unmeasured confounding factors, although we have reassuringly noted consistency between the primary analysis and the propensity score matched analyses. Nevertheless a cause-and-effect relationship between drug therapy and survival should not be inferred. These data do not apply to the use of any treatment regimen in the ambulatory, out-of-hospital setting. Randomized clinical trials will be required before any conclusion can be reached regarding benefit or harm of these agents in COVID 19 patients.”

        This is another retrospective study. Not a randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled clinical trial. Still, it is a sizable study and seems to be successful enough in matching the treatment and control arms for obvious possible confounding factors. But there are limitations, as the authors state and some oddities that don’t add up, in my very humble opinion.

        They are way too vague about the severity/significance of the ventricular arrythmias:

        “We also note that although we evaluated the relationship of the drug treatment regimen with the occurrence of ventricular arrythmia, we did not measure QT intervals, nor did we stratify the arrythmia pattern (such as torsade de pointe).”

        Why not? This is one of the two main outcomes under investigation in the study. Deadly cardiac toxicity is supposed to be a big deal with these chloroquine drugs. A QT prolongation possibly leads to ventricular arrythmia, a brief ventricular arrythmia is a relative hiccup, a torsade de pointe can put a patient in the ground. There is no good reason for not citing the QT prolongation data, or for not stratifying the severity of the arrythmia incidents. They also, as far as I could tell, did not mention any patients being taken off the CQ or HCQ regimens, due to QT prolongation, or ventricular arrythmias. They have linked zero deaths to side effects of the drugs. They have failed to provide any useful information, on the safety issue. And they admit it:

        “We also did not establish if the association of increased risk of in-hospital deaths with use of the drug regimen is linked directly to their cardiac risk, nor did we conduct drug-dose response analysis of the observed risks.”

        I suspect that the trial arms were not well matched with regards to initial severity. The study authors calculated a qSOFA score and used SPO2 data to retrospectively assess and classify severity. What we would like to know is how was the severity of these patients’ illnesses evaluated by the docs, who examined them and made the decision, within 48 hours of diagnosis, to treat them with ” WARNING DANGEROUS” chloroquine drugs.

        There are 201 HCQ_COVID 19 prospective clinical trials underway, as of about a minute ago. I’ll wait.

      • Don Monfort

        This is how the left loon TDS media reports the trial results:

        Hydroxychloroquine linked to deaths and heart risks in new COVID-19 study after Trump touted and claimed to be taking the drug
        BY
        JOHN LAUERMAN
        AND
        BLOOMBERG

        https://fortune.com/2020/05/22/hydroxychloroquine-trump-covid-19-side-effects-drug-study-coronavirus-antimalaria-treatment-is-it-safe/

      • Don Monfort

        Points out more flaws in this retrospective study that has the virus cheerleaders all giddy:

    • Really, Matthew, you find that “testimony” credible?

    • Pat Cassen: Really, Matthew, you find that “testimony” credible?

      No.

      Look at the Lancet article I cited just above it.

  62. A discussion of declining rates of change, with comments on geographic heterogeniety:
    https://thomasglassphd.com/category/daily-briefings/

    Item 1 tries to throw a wet blanket on enthusiasm for vaccines.

  63. I did an analysis demonstrating Ioannidis’ statements about IFR because its quite obvious that apparent values will vary over a large range depending on the risk groups infected. That’s why the estimates from serological studies include demographic information are the best ones.

    I will start with Ferguson’s age cohort IFR estimates. Virtually every serologic study in the US shows his IFR’s are at least a factor of 2 too high. This gives me the following values. I have combined the 1-0 and 10-19 cohorts and the 20-19 and 30-39 cohorts.

    Age cohort. IFR. % of US population
    1. 0-19 0.002% 27%
    2. 20-49 0.0275% 28%
    3. 50-59 0.3% 14%
    4. 60-69 1.1% 14%
    5. 70-79 2.5% 11%
    6. 80-90 4.6% 4.2%
    Total IFR: 0.67%

    Its now easy to do some calculations on apparent IFR’s depending on the age profile of those infected. For reference, in the US, expected mortality is about 2,840,000 per annum.

    Scenario. #0
    Age cohort % infected. Fatalities. Infections
    1. 10% 2282 8,900,000
    2. 20%. 5,082 18,500,000
    3. 30%. 41,580 13,900,000
    4. 40%. 203,280 18,500,000
    5. 60%. 544,500 21,780,000
    6. 80%. 510,048 11,088,000
    Totals 1,306,772 92,668,000
    Apparent IFR: 1.41%

    Scenario. #1
    Age cohort % infected. Fatalities. Infections
    1. 10% 2282 8,900,000
    2. 20%. 5,082 18,500,000
    3. 30%. 41,580 13,900,000
    4. 35%. 177,870 16,200,000
    5. 40%. 370,260 14,520,000
    6. 45%. 255,042 5,544,000
    Totals 852,116. 77,564,000
    Apparent IFR: 1.10%

    Scenario. #2
    Age cohort % infected. Fatalities. Infections
    1. 40% 7128 35,640,000
    2. 30%. 7,623 27,720,000
    3. 20%. 27,720 9,240,000
    4. 15%. 69,300 6,300,000
    5. 10%. 90,750 3,630,000
    6. 5%. 31,878 693,000
    Totals 234,399. 76,593,000
    Apparent IFR: 0.31%

    This also demonstrates the imperative to protect nursing homes from infection. It appears in the US that 40% of all fatalities have taken place in residents of these homes. Some governors like DeSantos in Florida did a good job. Others in New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania did a terrible job and cost tens of thousands of lives. This also explains the apparently higher IFR in these locales and the much lower IFR in Florida.

    CFR’s are much more uncertain because of massive differences in rates of testing.

    Ioannidis is aware of all this and is attempting to correct his numbers based on the available data on age structure of those tested. So far the only critique I’ve seen was on the garbage twitter forum. More work needs to be done. However, I tend to trust someone with no political motivation and with scores of collaborators and a sterling reputation more than outsiders who know little.

  64. DATE NEW CASES increase % # TESTS
    5/10/2020 24,835 -2,878 -10.3 287,829
    5/11/2020 21,122 -3,713 -14.9 540,847
    5/12/2020 19,534 -1,588 -7.5 164,139
    5/13/2020 23,704 4,170 21.3 340,173
    5/14/2020 21,710 -1,994 -8.4 340,721
    5/15/2020 29,276 7,566 25.8 385,164
    5/16/2020 25,812 -3,464 -11.8 433,742
    5/17/2020 20,716 -5,096 -19.7 860,733
    5/18/2020 18,631 -2,103 -10.1 576,617
    5/19/2020 23,764 5,133 27.5 477,701
    5/20/2020 18,882 -4,882 20.5 357,771
    5/21/2020 24,816 5,234 31.4 1,501,704
    5/22/2020 27,559 2,743 11 429,222
    27,559 is 6.4% of total tests.
    The jail break has begun. Colleges are closed. Remember the spring breakers. They are unleashed. Lord help us all.

  65. Dr. Birx is is on CSPAN now talking about how well you have done. They must think, as I do, we are at the bottom. It is only up from here.

    • They estimate the global IFR. Considering the expected variance based on available treatment and demographics it is an interesting statistical tidbit, but not particularly useful IMO. For decades, the IFR of a novel virus has been determined by seroprevalence tests.

      I am always amused when smart people say that the tests in LA County, Germany, and New York can’t all be correct since the implied IFR is so different. Why do we believe they should all be the same?

      • I agree that a global IFR is of limited value.

        The problem is thst there are a lot of people saying “This is just like a bad flu.” — and then crying “tyranny, tyranny” based on, essentially, a global IFR estimate.

        Thus, it meakes sense to vet the “global IFR” to get a sense of the number.

      • dougbadgero

        CDC current best estimate IFR in USA is 0.26%. This what they recommend models use as best estimate IFR. This is derived from an assumed 35% asymptomatic rate and a 0.4% symptomatic IFR. If accurate, this would be similar to past pandemic flus, i.e.1957 and 1968.

    • I’ve posted the CDC’s best estimate elsewhere. I’m skeptical, but they obviously are experts.

      So now you’re promoting a singular, national IFR.

      There are other estimates. We’ll see which is accurate.

      • dougbadgero

        Lol. I am not promoting anything. All of the United States is a single first world country so comparisons make more sense than a single global IFR. But no there is no reason to expect a constant IFR even within a single state. CDC also has “best case” and “worst case” assumptions for USA. That is the proper way to use computer models of complex systems. Those who try to make specific predictions don’t understand models or mathematics.

      • Don Monfort

        Yes, speaking for the CDC we are experts. From the beginning, we had this thing. Everybody is going to die. Yeah, we got tests. OK, they don’t work, we will have to try something else. You don’t need masks. Oh wait, everybody and their pets need masks. Coronavirus survives on all kinds of surfaces for way too long, don’t touch anything. Don’t sweat that last thing, we were wrong again. And we are reconsidering our prediction that everybody is going to die. It’s just old folks in nursing homes. That’s how us CDC experts roll.

      • Not everyone can always be right like you, Don, with a fast moving novel virus pandemic – you know, like your prediction of 6,000? deaths.

  66. On 4/24/2020 39,887 is 8.6% of total tests 465,986
    On 5/22/2020 27,559 is 6.4% of total tests 429,222

  67. Ioannidis meta-analysis:

    > Infection fatality rates ranged from 0.03% to 0.50% and corrected values ranged from 0.02% to 0.40%.

    If everyone in the country were infected, at 99k deaths it would be 0.03%, higher than the lower bound of his adjusted range.

    • There are a lot of confounding factors here. In New York City IFR will be higher because of a strained health care system and the high exposure rates in nursing homes and hospitals.

  68. new case counts and percent increase in the US over the past week:

    23589, 1.6%; 19891, 1.3%; 22630,1.5%; 20289, 1.3%; 21408, 1.4%;
    27733, 1.7%; 24197, 1.5%.

    1089, 2.2%; 865, 1.0%; 1003, 1.1%; 1552, 1.7%; 1461, 1.6%;
    1359, 1.4%; 1293, 1.4%.

    This looks more like an approximate steady-state, to me, than a continuing decline.

  69. UK-Weather Lass-In-Earnest

    A little piece of the jigsaw concerning immunity seems to be missing from all but the most detailed and comprehensive trace and track regimes (e.g. Iceland).

    It would IMO be very useful to know the time it takes from initial infection to the presence of immunity to the virus by a healthy individual’s unique immune system. Are antibodies necessary for short term immunity from reinfection or do they slowly but surely develop for longer term protection from reinfection?

    I do not get the feeling we know these things about most influenza seasons let alone SARS-CoV-2 and perhaps we should.

    .

    • With vaccine, I have always heard that 2 weeks are needed. So likely that would be the case with infection of actual virus – 2 weeks from infection. But that is just a guess.

      • dougbadgero

        One seroprevalence test I looked at, Roche I believe, had a 100% sensitivity after 14 days and 65% after 7 days. This was in patients who tested positive for the virus via PCR test.

  70. Long term health care facilities in Minnesota account for 81% of COVID19 deaths.
    “Minnesota long term care residents represent only about 1% of the state population, and have made up 13% of total COVID-19 cases in the state, but have made up about 81% of total deaths.”

    There have been 11 deaths age 50 and below which is 0.0003% of that cohort.

    • “Long term health care facilities in Minnesota account for 81% of COVID19 deaths”.

      Don’t you always need to qualify statements like this by adding “so far”?

      Nursing homes, prisons, meat packing plants are going to get the first intense outbreaks because they have large numbers of people in close proximity. Nursing homes will get a lot of deaths because the people in them are old and medically compromised.

      The disease will move out from these hot spots more slowly to the rest of the population over the course of 18-24 months. There will still be lot of deaths in nursing homes in the overall totals but percentages will go down as the virus moves through the general population. Some are speculating we may be heading towards an extended plateau of cases and deaths. I’m thinking in terms of 200-300K or so deaths with maybe 50-60% elderly eventually in the US unless an early vaccine becomes available.

      • One probably does need to say, So far.
        What will happen is nursing homes will evolve. People will change their behaviors.
        Home care.
        Home care was all ready increasing.
        But we could have socialized care instead and not let nursing homes evolve or behaviors change. Let’s have our politicians decide this.

      • No, Jim. It’s in past tense “have made up”. I don’t need to say, so far. It’s a given. Have you ever said anything is anything or was anything when you are talking about the future?. If I had wanted to make a point about the future, I would have put in a predicate like “It’s projected to be” or “It’s predicted”.

        C’mon maaan.

        Look at the pie chart on the right. Look at the deaths/cases ratio. It’s obvious the general population is not as at risk as nursing homes, for a number of reasons.. As I showed, just 0.0003% of those under 50 of the general population have died. Of the 87 counties in Minnesota, 55 counties have 0 (ZERO) deaths. There is a reason for zero. It’s space. Buffers of space. There are still hundreds of counties in America with 0 deaths. There are 2,500 counties out of 3,200 counties with 0 or single digit deaths. There are probably more deaths on a Brooklyn street than in the entire state of Wyoming.

        I think you are frustrated your apocalyptic predictions for Main Street America have been a dud. Just like Ferguson’s model. And unless a drastic change of events comes to pass, the UN prediction of up to 3.3 Million deaths in Africa will also fall flat. There are 3184 deaths “so far” for all of Africa, and Ethiopia, a country of 115,000,000, has been stuck at 5 deaths for quite a few days.

        If we get a spike next winter, it’s only going to be a Thumb Tack.

      • “I think you are frustrated your apocalyptic predictions for Main Street America have been a dud.”.

        This you say as we approach 100,000 deaths, hospitals in Alabama overflowing, hot spots now states like Texas, Florida. Nebraska, Oklahoma.

        That would be funny if it wasn’t.

      • James Cross: hot spots now states like Texas, Florida. Nebraska, Oklahoma.

        Texas yesterday reported 1109 new cases and 26 new deaths; Florida 2190 and 45. That is not nearly as “hot” as the North-Eastern Seaboard (e.g. Massachusetts with 80 new deaths, or new York with 124 new deaths; both with smaller populations). Alabama recorded 12 new deaths and 5178 active cases; where is the evidence for exhausted hospital capacity in Alabama?

      • James Cross: hot spots now states like Texas

        Daily New Case counts and Daily New Death counts are nearly constant over the past month in Texas: https://txdshs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/ed483ecd702b4298ab01e8b9cafc8b83

      • Don Monfort

        “I’m thinking in terms of 200-300K or so deaths with maybe 50-60% elderly eventually in the US unless an early vaccine becomes available.”

        Wishful thinking.

      • Jim

        There are 73 counties in Nebraska without a single death. Another 8 counties have a single death. So 81 out of 93 counties have 0 or 1 deaths.

        Over 50% of Nebraska deaths have occurred in nursing homes. Eight of the counties with either the most deaths or a dramatic increase in cases have major meat packing operations, just like other hotspots across the country. Those counties also have demographic characteristics associated with employment that perhaps contribute to higher than average levels. There has also been a dramatic increase in testing in some locations.

        Add it up and you have a confluence of employment, sociological and testing factors that have been at play. The entire state has 149 deaths.

      • Jim

        Oklahoma is similar to Nebraska, in that nursing homes account for 50% of the state’s 307 COVID19 deaths. They also have had a major effort to increase testing with assistance from the National Guard related to outbreaks at meat processing facilities. Also, breakouts at correction institutions have added to the total, with expanded testing.

        It would be interesting to know how much of the increase in cases nationwide has been due to programs to test inmates. Michigan’s cases in its correctional system went up dramatically in a few days simply because the National Guard implemented an intensive testing program.

      • With just one ICU bed available, Montgomery, Alabama, is sending sick patients to Birmingham

        https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/21/us/montgomery-alabama-icu-bed-shortage/index.html

      • Don Monfort

        OMG! It’s much worse than we thought. Hospitals in Alabama are overflowing. Except in Birmingham.

  71. latest CDC report:https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html

    Actual data only through March, whereas April was the deadliest month so far. Table 2 is getting a lot of play.

    • Yes Matt, It’s incredibly good news. Their best estimate scenario has a symptomatic IFR of 0.4%. If we adjust that for asymptomic cases (35%) in this scenario, one gets about 0.26% for the IFR. That’s in the same range as Ioannidis and colleagues estimates based on Santa Clara and my estimate based on Miami Dade.

  72. some of the ongoing modeling projects:
    https://ddi.sutd.edu.sg/

    Pick your favorite. Some are updated regularly.

    The UTexas Austin graph notes apparent current/recent flattening (what I called approximate steady-state), but projects declining deaths in future.

    • Well, They seem to assume their testing sample is random but there is strong evidence its skewed to young and healthy individuals. But the issue that I think is the most serious one is the counting of “presumed” covid deaths. There is growing evidence that covid death counts are too high. Birx believes they are 25% too high. Last week Colorado lowered their count by 25%. There is also in my mind a higher chance of errors in New York City where medical professionals probably didn’t have time to accurately determine cause of death and in fact many patients may have had incomplete charts. My crude calculation at the time the serologic study was released was 0.5%.

      There is a higher chance that demographics were taken into account in the Santa Clara study and a higher chance of a random sample in Miami Dade county,

  73. (regarding transmission into and within Israel) Another preprint – take with a grain of salt:

    > A comparison between reported and model-estimated case numbers indicated high levels of transmission heterogeneity in SARS-CoV-2 spread, with between 1-10% of infected individuals resulting in 80% of secondary infections.

    https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.21.20104521v1

  74. DATE NEW CASES increase % # TESTS
    5/10/2020 24,835 -2,878 -10.3 287,829
    5/11/2020 21,122 -3,713 -14.9 540,847
    5/12/2020 19,534 -1,588 -7.5 164,139
    5/13/2020 23,704 4,170 21.3 340,173
    5/14/2020 21,710 -1,994 -8.4 340,721
    5/15/2020 29,276 7,566 25.8 385,164
    5/16/2020 25,812 -3,464 -11.8 433,742
    5/17/2020 20,716 -5,096 -19.7 860,733
    5/18/2020 18,631 -2,103 -10.1 576,617
    5/19/2020 23,764 5,133 27.5 477,701
    5/20/2020 18,882 -4,882 20.5 357,771
    5/21/2020 24,816 5,234 31.4 1,501,704
    5/22/2020 27,559 2,743 11 429,222
    5/23/2020 25,349 -2,210 -8 472,287
    Would be nice to see how many we could put in volentary isolation with 500,000 tests. Talk to yoyr co-workers again.

    • If we stay 500,000 or higher we should stay way aheat of those cases that are being made by the present.infectred.

  75. In the HCQ news:

    New Delhi: The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), the country’s apex body in the field, has found that consuming the drug hydroxychloroquine reduces the chances of getting infected with Covid-19.

    https://theprint.in/health/hcq-breakthrough-icmr-finds-its-effective-in-preventing-coronavirus-expands-its-use/427583/

    • They recommend close monitoring and informed consent:

      However, in the final results of the studies (HCQ prophylaxis among 1,323 healthcare workers), the ICMR found mild adverse effects such as nausea in 8.9 per cent workers, abdominal pain in 7.3 per cent, vomiting in 1.5 per cent, low blood sugar (hypoglycaemia) in 1.7 per cent and cardio-vascular effects in 1.9 per cent.

      The advisory states the drug should be discontinued if it causes the “rare” side effects related to the heart, such as cardiomyopathy, a disease which makes it harder for heart to pump blood to the entire body, and heart-rate disorders.

      The advisory mentions that HCQ, in rare cases, can cause visual disturbance, including “blurring of vision, which is usually self-limiting and improves on discontinuation of the drug”.

      ICMR has clarified that “for the above cited reasons — heart and vision — the drug has to be given under strict medical supervision with an informed consent”.

      • Don Monfort

        That’s surprising. I would have thought they would recommend just slipping it into the water supply.

    • Looks good, but “love” might not be the right word: MUMBAI: More than half of the 10,000 policemen … [refuse to take the drug.]

    • I wonder why Judith deleted my comment. The cops who died were all in the bunch, who refused to take the HCQ. HCQ is saving lives in India. That’s why India loves it. Really, India loves it. They like it, too. They are ecstatic about it. They are enamored with it. They think it’s nice. Go to it, mattie.

  76. Climate policy based on geothermal denialism has/will cause more deaths than COVID19.

    http://phzoe.com/2020/05/22/equating-perpendicular-planes-is-plain-nonsense/

  77. Matthew R Marler

    JP Morgan economic report: https://www.jpmorgan.com/jpmpdf/1320748560622.pdf

    Daily Mail claims to report on a JP Morgan analysis showing no increase in viral infection rates following end of lockdowns, but I have not found the original that they cite.

  78. Roger Knights

    Just up, here’s a Jo Nova critique of the Lancet HCQ paper:

    Hydroxychloroquine Lancet study of 96,000 Covid patients ignores Zinc, wasn’t randomized, has 12% death rate

    http://joannenova.com.au/2020/05/hydroxychloroquine-lancet-study-of-96000-covid-patients-ignores-zinc-wasnt-randomized-has-12-death-rate/

  79. This should be a great time to accomplish a lot, but I keep finding myself distracted.

    What have you found to stay on task during this captive free time?

  80. Every time you hear a reporter or government official say WE HAD A RECORD NUMBER OF NEW CASES, pat yourself on the back and laugh. That just means you are doing a good job.

  81. This is indeed damning:

    • So said Rhett.

      Just musing.

      After you move inland from the I-95 corridor, get away from international air travel, exclude the subways, take away the nursing homes, subtract the meat processing plants, ignore the special testing programs, leave out the incarcerated, allow for the most at risk due to underlying health conditions, and consider the social habits and living arrangements of some communities, I wonder if the lockdowns were applied to the overwhelming segment of the population who weren’t the source of the most fertile territory for the virus.

    • How do you determine which state is in lock down, when did it start, when did it end?

      The problems with much this “lock down” analysis are:

      1- Many states never were in lock down or were in lock down so briefly that it may have had little or no effect. This applies to much of the South and Midwest especially.
      2- People and businesses are locking themselves down even when lock downs have been officially lifted.

      I live in the Georgia which officially is not locked down yet most restaurants and retail shops are closed or open only for take out or with other restrictions, people are wearing face masks, plexiglass is at checkouts at grocery stores, one way aisles, and 6 foot markers at checkout lines. Our pool isn’t open and 4th of July parade and fireworks have been cancelled. Most large corps are working remotely. Are we locked down or not? For all intents and purposes, in this part of the state we are still locked down.

      You can’t know anything about people’s actual behavior by whether the state is officially locked down or not.

      • “How do you determine which state is in lock down, when did it start, when did it end?”
        And how did you determine the climate is now worse and we caused at least half of the warming? Perhaps after 10 years of work, you can do that. But make no reference to the economics of wind turbines and solar panels please. But what we can learn from the climate debate is to shut down the other side.

      • James Cross: You can’t know anything about people’s actual behavior by whether the state is officially locked down or not.

        One of the issues here is whether the decrees had any effect, over and above the voluntary social distancing that preceded and succeeded them. The dates of the decrees are known; and when schools were closed, restaurants shifted to take-out only, when police started patrolling the surfers, etc. The decrees had some foolishness (putting sand in skateboard parks), and contradictions (most elective surgeries called “non-essential” but not abortions; bars open but not hair salons.)

        Another issue is the extravagance of the commentaries: the Gov of S. Dakota received much villification; Atlantic magazine published a warning that the Georgia lockdown end constituted “human sacrifice”. There were claims that the reduction in new case and death rates were entirely due to the mandated lockdowns (e.g. Tamino’s comparison of Switzerland and Sweden.)

        The evidence cited by the JP Morgan report undermines the claims that the Governor’s who issued lockdown orders achieved anything thereby.

      • The JP Morgan Report is GIGO.

        It combines all sorts of demographics and population densities, populations at different stages of infection, different lockdown rules during and after or effectively no lockdown rules and comes to jerry-rigged conclusion

      • James Cross: It combines all sorts of demographics and population densities, populations at different stages of infection, different lockdown rules during and after or effectively no lockdown rules and comes to jerry-rigged conclusion

        It’s simple and focused: if the decrees reduced the infection rates, then ending the decrees ought to have increased infection rates. That didn’t happen.

        So, where is the evidence that decreeing lockdowns had a beneficial effect over and above the voluntary responses of the citizens?

        Did Gov Kemp institute a “human sacrifice” by gradually ending the official lockdown? Or, avoiding the extravagant language, is there evidence that he made a mistake?

    • USA TODAY presented the Top 50 Counties for highest per capita COVID19 cases. There are many ways of identifying the hardest hit areas and this is one, but not necessarily the best or most relevant or most useful. I would like to see an analysis of the county per capita death rate, so that might come later. Wayne County (Detroit) didn’t even make the list. I’m sure if it was Deaths Per Capita they would have.

      I analyzed their list to see if there were dominant themes or causes etc. This is what I found.

      20 counties:meat processing plants as the probable cause of the high rate.
      14 counties were in the NYC Metro Area or I-95 Corridor(Boston)
      10 counties were affected by outbreaks/intensive testing at correctional facilities
      3 counties were affected by major nursing home outbreaks
      1 County was adjacent to Navajo Nation
      1 County with major ski resort. National/International customer base
      1 County undetermined cause of outbreak

      These 50 counties had the highest per capita case rate. That is not the same as the highest infection rate. We may never know what those counties are. Most of the counties outside of NYC environs have small population bases. Some were 7k, 8k, 9k, 10k. The actual number of cases are rounding errors for major metro areas. Consequently, an outbreak at a single plant or prison or nursing home has an enormous impact on that community. Outbreaks in low population areas have a leverage effect. Because they have many cases, pressure is brought to have a more intensive program of testing, which in turn increases the cases and thus raises their per capita rate.

      One of the more interesting things I came across was the result from a major testing program at one of the prisons. They found a 98% asymptomatic rate, which is much higher than I have seen elsewhere.

      This is one way to evaluate where the so called hotspots are but it has its limitations in use for policy responses.

  82. New zealand. Very few new cases.

    1504 cases. 21 deaths. 1.39% case fatality rate.

    • Now examine the Taiwan results. You know, where the deaths/10 million are the lowest recorded (which is how pandemics are actually measured) yet they did NOT lockdown their economic life.

      C;mon, don’t be shy. Address it. Oh, and special pleading will require hard, empirical evidence, not just arm-waving.

      C’mon.

      • Taiwan. 441 cases. 7 deaths.

        Case fatality = 1.58%.

        Assume 35% asymptomatic cases.

        595 cases, 7 deaths = 1.17% IFR.

      • C’mon little Joshie.

        Pandemics are measured in deaths per million, 10 million etc.

        As i expected. you dodged the issue with fakery.

        Heres a real example, little joshie:

        Aus, with a population of 25 million, has had about 100 deaths to date attributed to C-19 – ie. 40 deaths/10 million population

        Taiwan, with a population of 23 million (very close to Aus), has had about 3 deaths attributed to C-19 – ie. 1/13th that of Aus.

        Note that, little Joshie. One thirteenth !!!

        And, NO lockdown. NO lockdown …

        Now answer the question.

      • Australia 16.5k cases, 641 deaths.

        Case fatality = 3.89%

      • Oops. I forgot. Assume 35% asymptomatic.

        Cases = 22.3k. Case fatality rate = 2.88%

    • What’s your theory explaining this good result? I heard on NPR, they didn’t make it political. But what is, Not political? It’s not political when I give in and say you’re right.

      What has New Zealand done for me?

      • Tons of reasons for good results overall.

        What’s hard to do is reconcile their high death rate, given the estimate of of the CDC. Perhaps they have many unidentified cases, but that seems unlikely given that their rate of symptomatic cases showing up is so low (something like zero cases at all in 5 out of the last 6 days), and they rank reasinably in testing per capita.

      • Average hours of sunshine per year of New Zealand versus Australia. High death rate. Base level of vitamin D.

      • Unlikely that the causality isn’t multi-factorial.

  83. Roger Knights

    The Coronavirus Vaccine May Not Work on the Elderly
    For those over 65, the pandemic is unlikely to end when the first vaccines arrive
    Brendan Borrell May 21 · 8 min read

    https://onezero.medium.com/the-coronavirus-vaccine-may-not-work-on-the-elderly-3fc176f75751

  84. We all know climate versus weather. This is virus versus what people do. What people do is advised by governments at various levels of encouragement.

    The virus is, as the climate is. Weather is now, with the background of climate. Today’s stats have the background of what the virus is, plus variability, plus our managing the virus to date.

    We are trying to control the weather in this analogy.

    We are not even sure what the weather is in place A versus place B. Too complicated and non-standard data. We cannot agree on what the weather is?

    Say for instance that total deaths in a country doubles (2X) for one year from the average. But otherwise their economy continues its average rate of growth. What is the weather?

    The next country has a death rate of 1.5X yet tanks their economy for the next 3 years. What is the weather?

    The weather is my interpretation of what it is. Not some scientist’s interpretation. I have to deal with my weather. That scientist is not giving me money.

  85. All cause mortality in the liberty case of Sweden through April.

    • Notice how they conveniently include January and February which were months with few attributed CV deaths. 2017, 2018,, and 2019 had worse flu seasons Nov-Feb than 2020. 2020 was having a mild season so including those bad flu seasons with the deaths in March and April that are mostly outside of flu mask the effect of the coronavirus deaths. Straight up comparison of excess deaths in March and April show the effect of the pandemic.

      How can they focus on a week – with a seasonal virus, you must focus on the season e.g. pic.twitter.com/dxNUmHpxCI— Ivor Cummins (@FatEmperor) May 24, 2020

      https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

      • The plot is of all cause mortality for January through April.

        If one is worried about COVID, one can worry.

        If one was worried about dying from any cause, COVID was irrelevant.

      • You have to consider the impact of COVID-19 independently.

        Imagine normal all cause, and then add COVID-19 on top. And then you have to factor in the uncertainties in the identifications. And then you have to factor in any likelihood that the numbers might have been higher absent interventions. And it’d still to early to evaluate anyway.

        Respect uncertainty.

    • Of course, there’s uncertainty with all the numbers.
      Below are the FT’s weekly data and Sweden shows a peak.

      Still, many countries don’t show significant all cause mortality risk.

      The 1968 influenza didn’t bump the all cause mortality so much either.

      • A comparison of the number of deaths from all causes in the U.S. during the first 17 weeks of 2020 reveals a higher mortality than for the same period in any of the previous five years. While the death count was comparable to previous years in the first two months of 2020, it increased rapidly in March and April. Comparisons of mortality are highly sensitive to how the data are gathered and presented, therefore any claims based on the data must always be presented in the appropriate context. Since its outbreak in the U.S., COVID-19 has claimed more lives than diabetes, suicide, or stroke.

        Using the most recent data from the CDC on the leading causes of death in the U.S. during 2017, we can see that COVID-19 claimed more lives over the 12 weeks of noticeable presence of SARS-CoV-2 in the U.S. (from week 6 through week 17) than accidents, stroke, diabetes, suicide, and other conditions (Figure 4) during an equivalent period of time%. STAT News reached a similar conclusion in an article published on 9 April, albeit with a different methodology. The fact that COVID-19 ranked third in the list of leading causes of death in the U.S. during the 12 weeks from February to the end of April shows that COVID-19 cannot be ignored as possible contributor to the unusual increase in the number of U.S. deaths, which as our calculations here demonstrate, was not “non-existent”.

        https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/mortality-in-the-u-s-noticeably-increased-during-the-first-months-of-2020-compared-to-previous-years/

      • “unusual increase in the number of U.S. deaths”

        We’re not done with this, of course.

        But US deaths year to date are 3% above 2017-2019 mean, which is probably at the noise level.

        And, the profile of COVID fatalities are old and with metabolic syndrome.
        Such conditions were more conducive to death by the end of the year as it was and may not be ‘unexpected’ deaths.

  86. (echoing pdcarey above)

    • Yes it is. It seems the bad study was thrown together. So when a drug starts killing people, be skeptical of that conclusion.

    • Joshua: Good critique of the Lancet article on HCQ:

      I disagree. Above I commented that the groups were closely matched, even though there was no random assignment, and the closeness of the matching was confirmed in a propensity analysis.

      I think the paper was better than that critique, despite the exaggeration in the reportage.

      • Don Monfort

        They did not adequately establish that the arms were well matched regarding baseline severity of disease. That’s crucial. They failed to provide any evidence that HCQ side effects adversely affected survival.

      • I’m with the want old people in NY to die crowd on this one.

  87. DATE NEW CASES increase % # TESTS
    5/10/2020 24,835 -2,878 -10.3 287,829
    5/11/2020 21,122 -3,713 -14.9 540,847
    5/12/2020 19,534 -1,588 -7.5 164,139
    5/13/2020 23,704 4,170 21.3 340,173
    5/14/2020 21,710 -1,994 -8.4 340,721
    5/15/2020 29,276 7,566 25.8 385,164
    5/16/2020 25,812 -3,464 -11.8 433,742
    5/17/2020 20,716 -5,096 -19.7 860,733
    5/18/2020 18,631 -2,103 -10.1 576,617
    5/19/2020 23,764 5,133 27.5 477,701
    5/20/2020 18,882 -4,882 20.5 357,771
    5/21/2020 24,816 5,234 31.4 1,501,704
    5/22/2020 27,559 2,743 11 429,222
    5/23/2020 25,349 -2,210 -8 472,287
    5/24/2020 19,173 -6,176 24.3 368,126
    19,173 is 5.1% of total tests.
    Today is the 14th day. In the last 14 days you have removed 320,048 into isolation.
    Tomorrow is Veteran’s day. Thank-you
    In the next 7 days lets see how close you can come to what you did 3 days ago. Only we can open the country. Put as many asymptomatic into self isolation with a record number of tests. It would be enjoyable to hear the newss media say every day we have a record number of new cases!!!

  88. SteveF at lucia’s made an interesting calculation.

    The NY [serologic] results were announced on April 24, the testing took place in the week before, and the positive individuals would had to have been infected no later than 2 weeks before… so about 160,000 symptomatic cases by then… making the asymptomatic cases about 15 times more prevalent than symptomatic cases. That means right now the people in NYC are likely approaching 50% seropositive! No wonder the new cases are falling.

    Assuming the same ratio, at the moment NY has had 5.56 million infections or 28.5% of the population. In New York City its probably much higher.

    Given this fact, did the lockdown really make much difference other than flattening the curve? I don’t think wo.

  89. “Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis

    Prof Mandeep R Mehra, MD
    Sapan S Desai, MD
    Prof Frank Ruschitzka, MD
    Amit N Patel, MD
    Published:May 22, 2020DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31180-6

    I don’t know if some of the resident Climate Etc. statisticians have looked at this paper that is currently careening through the lay press, I would be interested in determining whether the control group is comparable to the treatment group. Since the sine qua non of cardiac arrhythmia complication for these drugs is prolongation of the QTc interval and that was not measured, that the treatment group that did poorly had the Black, obese and more cardiac issues before treatment demographic characteristics, I wonder what may be the proper way to handle these effects.

    Just wondering.

    • My take:

      https://judithcurry.com/2020/05/19/covid-19-discussion-thread-vii/#comment-917810

      The biggest problem is that the relative baseline disease severity of the treatment and control arms is unknown. The post hoc criteria the retrospective study used is inadequate. We need to know the rationale used by the docs who started treatment. Docs have been discouraged from using HCQ in early treatment and treatment of relatively mild disease, because HCQ is unproven and DANGEROUS WILL ROBINSON! It’s likely that docs would have been reluctant to prescribe HCQ for milder cases that appeared to be progressing towards resolution.

      Anyway, there are 201 real clinical trials underway. University of Minnesota PEP trial manuscript is in hands of reviewers. Could be announced this week.

      • Don Monfort

        PS: It just occurred to me:

        study says:“We also did not establish if the association of increased risk of in-hospital deaths with use of the drug regimen is linked directly to their cardiac risk, nor did we conduct drug-dose response analysis of the observed risks.”

        If there was any hint of significant drug related cardiac toxicity, I bet they would have been happy to conduct drug-dose response analysis.

        These people set out to show that HCQ is ineffective and dangerous. Failed.

      • “These people set out to show…..”
        Doesn’t anyone do science for science sake? Everybody has their hustle. After reading all the politicized crap by climate scientists I thought they were the worst. This HCQ thing just throws a bigger lurid blanket over the lot of them. Politics has infected everything.

      • Matthew R Marler

        from the Post report of WHO HCQ discontinuation:“The executive group has implemented a temporary pause of the hydroxychloroquine arm within the Solidarity trial while the safety data is reviewed by the data safety monitoring board.

        And likely reviewed by everyone else.

        I hope that in the end the fact that the Lancet study was not a Randomized Clinical Trial will support a decision to continue the discontinued arm.

    • This is good. Some hippie a long time ago would put things outside to be ‘cleaned’ by the Sun. That’s what I learned from them. Try your dish cleaning cloths and sponges.

  90. Relatively low death total today – which is interesting given that case numbers were high @ threee weeks ago and IIRC the highest fatality is at around 3 weeks.

    Maybe treatment has gotten better?

    Either way, I’ll gladly take it.

  91. Low Dose of Hydroxychloroquine Reduces Fatality of Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32418114/

    Pre-print abstract of 500+ patient, 48 HCQ treated, retrospective study from China, for whatever it’s worth. Control arm just about wiped out. What is most interesting is:

    “The levels of inflammatory cytokine IL-6 were significantly reduced from 22.2 (8.3-118.9) pg mL-1 at the beginning of the treatment to 5.2 (3.0-23.4) pg mL-1 (P<0.05) at the end of the treatment in the HCQ group but there is no change in the NHCQ group. These data demonstrate that addition of HCQ on top of the basic treatments is highly effective in reducing the fatality of critically ill patients of COVID-19 through attenuation of inflammatory cytokine storm."

    I don't recall seeing HCQ linked to significant reduction of IL-6, or success in treating critically ill on ventilators.

      • from the abstract: We found that fatalities are 18.8% (9/48) in HCQ group, which is significantly lower than 47.4% (238/502) in the NHCQ group (P<0.001). The time of hospital stay before patient death is 15 (10-21) days and 8 (4-14) days for the HCQ and NHCQ groups, respectively (P<0.05). The levels of inflammatory cytokine IL-6 were significantly reduced from 22.2 (8.3-118.9) pg mL-1 at the beginning of the treatment to 5.2 (3.0-23.4) pg mL-1 (P<0.05) at the end of the treatment in the HCQ group but there is no change in the NHCQ group.

        The full text is available and downloadable. Another chart review without blinding or random assignment. Table 1 shows close matching of HCQ and NHCQ groups on covariates. Such close matching on all covariates is rare.

        I think this is the first study so far to show a benefit of HCQ in extremely sick patients.

        Here’s hoping!

  92. Bad news for the virus cheerleaders. Mid April-to-mid May tests for Sars CoV way up, positive percentage way down:

    https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/05212020/public-health-lab.html

  93. These frontline doctors are prescribing HCQ why?

    Donald Trump
    Fox News

    Conclusion:
    Frontline doctors are Knot Zs.

    They have the data. Because frontline doctors are prescribing this in the first place.

    Karma will get these HCQ haters. It’s not enough to get Trump. Get doctors too.

  94. Paradox of infection.

    NY observed roughly 2/3 of positive cases were infected at home?

    But this shouldn’t be surprising given that at home spread is probably MUCH greater than society spread ( proximity, duration, shared air, shared surfaces, etc. ).

    In a sense, stay-at-home policy condemns those with large households to greater all or nothing risk.

    Further, some workers, particularly those in an office without close contact, might be ‘safer’ at work than at home.

    • TE –

      > In a sense, stay-at-home policy condemns those with large households to greater all or nothing risk.

      Further, some workers, particularly those in an office without close contact, might be ‘safer’ at work than at home.

      So what you’re suggesting is that people go to work with a lot of protentially infected people (following a herd immunuty protocol) and THEN go back home to their multi-generational, highly populated households? Or are you suggesting that people infected from such living situations go to work to hang out with non-infected colleagues who will then go back to their families?

    • UCSF conducted a test on all residents of a community in San Francisco. The people who tested positive were the poorer section and were overwhelmingly going to work.
      https://missionlocal.org/2020/05/preliminary-results-of-mission-covid-tests-show-95-percent-of-positive-cases-were-latinx/

      • Among those who tested positive, 90 percent reported being unable to work from home. Zero Caucasians tested positive.
        https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/05/417356/initial-results-mission-district-covid-19-testing-announced

      • Don Monfort

        “Of the 4,160 people tested over four days, 1.8 percent were COVID-19-positive — or 74 people.”

        Very interesting. They tested a predominantly vulnerable population: working not at home, low income, Hispanic, densely populated area blah blah blah and only 1.8% tested positive.

        Should we quarantine Hispanics and Asian and Pacific Islanders?Especially the Asian and Pacific Islanders, as about half of them tested positive.

      • It is clear that lock-downs cause economic pain and are not indefinitely sustainable. Those who do not have the luxury of working from home bear a disproportionate burden. Any lock-downs ought to be used for a short period of time by a functioning government to establish extensive testing, contact tracing etc. We might agree on that instead of imagining anti-lockdown arguments based on fictitious arguments such as working outside is lower risk. Or that herd immunity is hit at 7%, asymptomatic cases are 20 times the symptomatic ones etc. What seems to be going on are attempts to fit science to predetermined political conclusions.

      • > It is clear that lock-downs cause economic pain and are not indefinitely sustainable.

        It’s not clear what the differential impact of a “lockdown” is relative to what would take place with less sweeping government interventions, such as that which has taken place in Sweden.

        It’s too early to really know, although the data so far are mixed in comparing Sweden to Denmark, Finland, and Norway. But even then, comparing a place like Sweden to the US is problematic as there is no guarantee – either with respect to economic impact or with respect to the spread of the virus – that would has happened in Sweden would also be what would happen in the US with the same level of government intervention.

        It’s conceivable that earlier, greater pain from a “lockdown” as opposed to a Sweden level government intervention would equalize over time with the counterfactual of greater deaths and illness as the result of no “lockdown.” Or it could run in the other direction and any differential, beneficial economic impact favoring a Swedish approach would get greater over time.

        In point of fact we just don’t know – although lots of people are very ready to confirm their biases by thinking that they do know.

      • Sweden’s data is consistent with a 0.75% IFR like in many other parts of the world but Stockholm R0 based on forecasted data is 5 for NYC (covid19-projections.com). So, Stockholm fatalities don’t look as bad as NYC but look worse than that of its neighbors with higher population density such as Denmark. Besides the population density differences with NYC, Swedish obesity rate is 13% compared to 40% for the U.S. Diabetes rate is also lower. They also have universal health care and guaranteed sick pay. So much talk here about 0.02% IFR, 7% herd immunity etc. Talk is cheap. But there is no forecasting power with such estimates.

      • That should read Stockholm R0 is less than 2 compared to greater than 5 for NYC.

      • RB –

        I was talking about the economic impact. Even there we don’t know what it works have been absent a “lockdown”. Clearly much of the economic pain world have hit if we had just “done a Sweden.”

        But people want to think what they want to think because they don’t like uncertainty and they have ideological biases to confirm.

      • Don Monfort

        I am with RB, on this one. We have had our lock down and will be suffering the economic pain for a long time, it’s time to get back to doing our business and living our lives.

  95. Are the lockdowns a matter of Self-serving bias
    (“the belief that individuals tend to ascribe success to their own abilities and efforts, but ascribe failure to external factors.”)?

    The growing list of evidence that unlocking has not led to increases of rates points to natural, secular determinants, not human effort.

    But we prefer human effort because it gives us a sense of control, leading to bias to support such an idea.

    • Did the lockdowns actually slow the spread ? – its a worthwhile question.
      Here in Dallas, Tx, there were too many exceptions to the lockdown, too many essential workers, etc. Almost equivilant to stopping mosquitos by using a chain link fence.

      The infection rate since mid March in the DFW metroplex has been fairly stable. Possibly a reduction in the rate of infection increase. Again worth exploring.

      • Joe

        With Dallas County at 191 deaths and a death rate of 73 per M and Harris County at 210 deaths and a death rate of 46 per M, it must be rich to hear lectures from those who try to compare you to the debacles in NYC with 20,000 deaths and a rate of 2,400 deaths per M and Detroit with 1320 deaths and a rate of 1900 per M.

        I believe there were inherent reasons that Dallas was never going to be a NYC or Detroit, and they were never going to be a Dallas. And it had nothing to do with the football teams.

    • The growing list of people saying that evidence proves that they were right, and that what they were “right” about is easily predicted by their ideology, and despite that what they were “right” about is often contradictory, just goes to show that peope like to think that ehey were right about things because it gives them a sense of control.

      The phenomenon is only enhanced during a pandemic, when people are even more strongly than normally presented with the evidence that they don’t have control.

    • So, would a severe economy killing lock down in Sweden have saved many lives? Could the New York syndicate of Cuomo-De Blasio have done better than the Swedes? Our little AOC Congressional district dweller should know.

      “Upwards of 70 percent of the Covid19 death toll in Sweden has been people in elderly care services (as of mid-May 2020). We summarize the Covid19 tragedy in elderly care in Sweden, particularly in the City of Stockholm. We explain the institutional structure of elderly care administration and service provision. Those who died of Covid19 in Stockholm’s nursing homes had a life-remaining median somewhere in the range of 5 to 9 months.”

      https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3609493

      • jungletrunks

        Lock down for Cuomo means something, I just don’t know exactly what. Consider his forced policy of making nursing homes accept those elderly COVID-19 patients who were released from hospitals; he stated to the media about nursing homes accepting these elderly patients:

        “They have no right to object”

  96. DATE NEW CASES increase % # TESTS
    5/10/2020 24,835 -2,878 -10.3 287,829
    5/11/2020 21,122 -3,713 -14.9 540,847
    5/12/2020 19,534 -1,588 -7.5 164,139
    5/13/2020 23,704 4,170 21.3 340,173
    5/14/2020 21,710 -1,994 -8.4 340,721
    5/15/2020 29,276 7,566 25.8 385,164
    5/16/2020 25,812 -3,464 -11.8 433,742
    5/17/2020 20,716 -5,096 -19.7 860,733
    5/18/2020 18,631 -2,103 -10.1 576,617
    5/19/2020 23,764 5,133 27.5 477,701
    5/20/2020 18,882 -4,882 20.5 357,771
    5/21/2020 24,816 5,234 31.4 1,501,704
    5/22/2020 27,559 2,743 11 429,222
    5/23/2020 25,349 -2,210 -8 472,287
    5/24/2020 19,173 -6,176 24.3 368,126
    5/25/2020 19,608 435 2.2 419,573
    19,608 is 4.6% of total tests.
    Today is the day we just began treading water. That means we must get well above 500,000 tests daily. The more we take out from here the more we have to find to stay ahead of the virus. Tell your employer she, or he, must see that each employee that has not been tested in the last 14 days must be tested.
    WE ARE CLOSE TO A MASSIVE WIN. I DO BELIEVE THOSE MEDICAL WORKERS IN CONTACT WITH THE VIRUS IN THE MEDICAL CENTERS, FULLY PROTECTED, ARE NOT INCLUDED. What you did it 4 days ago, NOW YOU MUST DO IT FOR THE NEXT 7 DAYS!!!!

  97. So many uncertainties.

    Will there be a second wave?
    Will this SARS-COVID-19 fade away like SARS1?
    Does the common cold CV imbue immunity?
    Will the record pace of vaccine production continue including gov de-regulation?
    Will it be necessary?
    Will it work for the people who don’t need it (young and healthy), but fail for those who do ( old and sick)?
    Will there be a V-shaped economic recovory?
    Will there be a U-shaped economic recovery?
    Will there be a depression?
    Will there be new record highs in the Stock Market?
    Will the dollar devalue from all the new helicopter money?
    Will 2019 be the year of all time peak CO2?
    Will there be a population boom?
    Will there be a population bust?
    Will the US recover more than the rest of the world?
    Will automation accelerate?
    Will the job losses become permanent?
    The job losses are mostly small business and at the lower end.
    Will the memory of a few stimulus checks fade and resentment of income inequality dwarf ‘Occupy Wall Street’?
    Will this dwarf the populist movements that got us Sanders and Trump?
    Will other nations suffer worse than the US?
    Will economic instabilities lead to geo-political instabilities?
    and WW III?

    Inquiring minds want to know.

  98. Common sense residual of continued lockdown, people aren’t seeking routine medical care. From suicides to drug overdoses to undetected cancer to heart ailments this is collateral damage from COVID19. Even with assurances to alleviate their fear many don’t visit a medical professional when they should.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/gracemarieturner/2020/05/22/600-physicians-say-lockdowns-are-a-mass-casualty-incident/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

    • You fail to distinguish between the effect of “lockdowns” and the effect of a raging epidemic. You’re also trying to calculate the impact too soon. It’s impossible to say what would have happened absent “lockdowns” – to this point or into the future.

      You also ignore a whole range of uncertainty. If you’re going to blame “lockdowns” for deaths from suicides to drug overdoses, do “lockdowns” get credit for the peope who didn’t die from the flu or from traffic accidents, etc.

      Ultimate, excess deaths are a crude measure, burbeuree a measure. If you subtract the identified deaths due to Cv-19 from the estimates of excess deaths during the “lockdown” period you probably get a number pretty close to zero. All imperfect numbers, for sure, but it does suggest that you’re being an alarmist.

      • J

        Just for you, I am giving a completely unscientific, totally unprovable, anecdote about possible effects of lockdowns. This will never show up in any government tabulations and I am not totally convinced there is anything to it, except for years to come inquiring minds will want to know.

        Our state has been in lockdown for 6 weeks or so. Until recently the golf courses have been closed. Our group, normally 10 or so, of 75 to 85 years old duffers today played as a group for the first time this year. They all complained about being cooped up and how lousy they felt from inactivity. A few said they felt they had aged years in a few weeks. Everyone was worn out even though carts were used. Some spoke of being winded during the lockdown from simple exercise that a year ago they wouldn’t have experienced. I wasn’t as exhausted in 2019 after one of the year’s first rounds as I am right now.

        Two of the group didn’t show up today. They both had strokes within the last 72 hours. Those strokes won’t ever show up as a statistic of the lockdown. Maybe they would have occurred anyway. That part is unknowable. But being shut in without the normal routine, certainly can’t add to one’s life expectancy.

        No counter factual analysis means much, except for interesting conjecture. But I suspect the lockdown will take away some indeterminate time off a lot of lives.

      • 10 weeks lockdown. Not 6 weeks. Lockdowns affect the mind as well.

      • Kid –

        Sorry about your buddies. Yes, de-conditioning happens quickly in people of that age. I don’t question that in the slightest.

        But the question is, again, is that a differential effect of the “lockdowns?” I say no one knows, but lotsa people are awfully sure about it

        And for all we know, absent a period of “lockdowns” might have resulted in a longer period of greater disruption had infections and deaths spun out more widely. We just don’t know.

        > But I suspect the lockdown will take away some indeterminate time off a lot of lives.

        That, it seems to me, rests on a simplistic and binary notion of “lockdowns” vs. no “lockdowns.” You may well be right. But I suspect that your suspicion is based more on ideology than the facts on the ground. Of course, you’ll probably suspect the same about my suspicion of your suspicion

      • There is nothing simple about the lockdowns across the nation. Each state has its own version and thus will have its own impact on those citizens in its individualistic way. As I said I’m not totally convinced that my own anecdote has any relevance. But it should be part of the evaluation.

    • Say MN has 50 deaths today from COVID19. How many future deaths from delayed medical treatments?

  99. “Lockdowns” are mostly fake news. There are a few exceptions. But…

    Most of the US has never been “locked down”. Some of the country has placed some commonsense restrictions on large crowds and encouraged people to stay home. In a lot of red states, not even that was done. Even where the restrictions were put into place, they were often flexible and laxly enforced. Those restrictions are being eased or lifted almost everywhere now.

    What has happened has mostly been that businesses of all sizes (but especially large businesses) have voluntarily shut down, changed their business model (delivery and pickup vs in restaurant/store), or directed their workforce to work from home where possible. People understandably concerned about getting sick or infecting a loved one have stayed home. Businesses are concerned about outbreaks in their workforce. In many cases, this was done before the so-called “lockdowns” and is continuing after the easing of restrictions.

    If you are concerned about the falloff in economic activity (and we should be), then you need to look at the cause and solutions. The cause is simply that people do not feel safe. Whether they are safe or not isn’t the issue. It is perception that counts. The solution we are lacking involves massive testing with tracking and isolation of sick people and those they have had contact with. There seems to be political will to acknowledge the real problem. Instead, we just get posturing, wishful thinking, and blame shifting.

    • Your comment is mostly false.

    • “What has happened has mostly been that businesses of all sizes (but especially large businesses) have voluntarily shut down…”

      Where I live, Virginia, this was mandatory not voluntary. And it was largely arbitrary- you were allowed to go into the liquor store next to the sandwich shop you were not allowed to enter.

      Hawaii is now an interesting one to look at. Statistically it did the best- lowest case count per mil of anyplace in the U.S. Only 643 cases and 17 deaths. They did it by closing the border and, therefore, literally shutting down the economy, which is tourism dependent. Nobody could visit unless they had the means to quarantine in a room for 14 days before hitting the beach. 35% of the workforce is unemployed so far and bank accounts are empty. Lines for free food are long, and just about any tourist related business is going bankrupt as even the emergency grants/loans run out. The sheriff is in hot water politically for saying the truth publicly: that he fears rioting if the economy isn’t reopened.

      But how? The national news media in the US is telling us daily that it’s the absolute height of selfishness and bad behavior to step out and get a beer and a burger anywhere in Wisconsin, they could hardly look favorably on flying for hours from Green Bay to a busy hotel in Hawaii.

      It’s entirely possible that “reopening” Hawaii means tourism from anywhere except the US for no other reason than most nations aren’t burdened with a political party that insists on making perma lockdown a partisan litmus test.

      But that won’t happen because the American party that cannot tolerate leaving the house wholly owns Hawaii. So it will remain shut down in partisan solidarity with no thought at all to what that means. For example- if you intend to completely destroy the tourism industry, It at least makes no sense to pay people who once worked in it to sit on an island in government housing and collect subsistence welfare. So, why is that the plan? Either reopen, or move people back to the mainland where they can find jobs. Nope, say the politicians, in the name of science the “smart” party says to do neither.

      And please don’t tell me “stimulus” checks. Those only work if you’re allowed to go to a local business and spend the money. Otherwise they just temporarily postpone foreclosure for the unemployed and go into the savings accounts (or Amazon.com) of those who can work from home.

    • James Cross: Most of the US has never been “locked down”.

      Most states have instituted lockdowns. It is true that about 2/3 to 3/4 of all workers stayed in their jobs, but almost all job losses were the result of formally decreed lockdowns. The auto factories are restarting work, with measures in place to slow the spread of the virus in the workplace, but all of the shutdowns were instituted and maintained by Governors’ decrees. Everything deemed “nonessential” by the Governors was shut down, including regular medical check-ups and elective surgeries. Beauty salons and barbershops have been in the news as some operators have been “apprehended” and fined for attempting to re-open. Restaurants have been emptied out; in CA, at least one restaurant was closed back down because customers were not maintaining proper social distancing outside .

      There has been much prudent voluntary social separation before the lockdowns began and after they were relaxed. And some “lockdown” orders were never universally obeyed. But it is absurd to argue that the lockdowns did not occur or had no effects.

      The beneficial and harmful effects of the lockdowns are hare to estimate, harder to estimate that the beneficial and harmful effects of medications in treating COVID-19, and harder to estimate than the prevalence of antibodies to the SARS CoV-2 virus. That does not make them nonexistent or negligible.

      • Don Monfort

        Jimmy lives on some other planet. No wait, it’s just that his grotesquely skewed awareness of the world is CNN goes in one ear and MSDNC goes in the other.

      • Don,

        I know you get your news from Twitter.

        Bot Army Behind ‘Reopen America’ Push On Social Media, Study Finds

        https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/05/22/bot-army-behind-reopen-america-push-on-social-media-study-finds/#55addbc739b2

      • Don Monfort

        That’s some very vague trivia, jimmy: Oh, oh, we know they are bots but we don’t know who they are but they must be Russia China Russia China! The implication that there is little enthusiasm for opening up is ludicrous.

        You didn’t read the alleged study, jimmy.

        https://www.cs.cmu.edu/news/nearly-half-twitter-accounts-discussing-%E2%80%98reopening-america%E2%80%99-may-be-bots

        Did you notice this outrageous error made by the obviously biased clown Forbes writer?:

        “The researchers also found that 82% of the 50 most influential retweeters of anti-lockdown content, and 88% of the top 1,000 retweeters, are bots.”

        From the obviously biased alleged “study”:

        “To analyze bot activity around the pandemic, CMU researchers since January have collected more than 200 million tweets discussing coronavirus or COVID-19. Of the top 50 influential retweeters, 82% are bots, they found. Of the top 1,000 retweeters, 62% are bots.”

        There are other errors and deficiencies, but I don’t want to waste any more time on your foolishness.

        I scan a multitude of news sources, jimmy. I don’t do twitter. I only look at twitter if I see something interesting in a twitter link someone has provided. I will even follow links that you provide, jimmy, even though they are almost invariably turn out to be bogus BS.

      • joe - Dallas

        While the lockdowns did occur and may have had some effect – you have to keep in mind that the lockdowns were quite porous.

        Not quite like keeping the mosquito’s out with a chain link fence – but close

    • Check out the Wall Street Journal from a few days ago.

      https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-state-by-state-guide-to-coronavirus-lockdowns-11584749351

      Practically the entire middle of the country never enacted restrictions or have lifted most of them.

      • The word “or” in your sentence doing a lot of heavy lifting there. Yes, much of the country is lifting unnecessary mandatory lockdowns that they once had.

        Everyone unemployed and/or going out of business is aware that they did not do so voluntarily. Best to try to get them to agree that they were accidentally sacrificed out of perceived necessity, rather than pretend they did it to themselves. Neither explanation will help you politically, but the former is less likely to infuriate them.

        Check out CNN today, Europe is reopening while leftists and bureaucrats try to figure out how to deal with the flaw in their economic thinking- you can’t offer an international free stuff for everyone “plan” unless the bad old capitalists are willing to pay for it.
        https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/26/economy/europe-coronavirus-budget/index.html

        Interesting questions:
        who do they expect to pay the big premium on Mercedes and Volvo vehicles needed to bail out France, italy, Spain, and recover the rest from a giant recession?
        How will that square with climate policy-which basically calls for less production with more of any remaining profits being spent on windmills?

      • You neglecting to realize that people aren’t going to go out and patronize businesses while the bodies are piling up in the street. Lockdown or no lockdown, the result is the same. If lifting the lockdown was all that was needed, then business should be booming in Texas now.

        Texas Economy In ‘Tailspin’ According To Dallas Federal Reserve

        https://www.tpr.org/post/texas-economy-tailspin-according-dallas-federal-reserve

        You see the same evidence in Sweden which used few or no restrictions. They still are hit with economic mess. Why? Because people.

        Stop blaming the problems on the lockdown. The problems have been the virus itself and the Federal government’s still inadequate response. The lockdowns to the extent they were implemented were only there to buy time until the federal government got its act to together. Since it still hasn’t and the lockdowns have ended or are ending, then you have to hope the virus hibernates over the summer and we have better testing and some treatment options by fall.

      • James Cross: You neglecting to realize that people aren’t going to go out and patronize businesses while the bodies are piling up in the street. Lockdown or no lockdown, the result is the same. If lifting the lockdown was all that was needed, then business should be booming in Texas now.

        Who has claimed that lifting the lockdown was “all that was needed” or that business would immediately boom? Nobody.

        You are neglecting to consider that the lockdown was not universally either/or; but clear cut in some cases and less so in others.

        Some of the economic slowdown was caused by, and is maintained by, voluntary social distancing. Lockdowns had additional effects, and those are being maintained by Governors’ decrees.

        Putting differently, you are vigorously debating a straw man. It’s as foolish as if someone were to write “Well, everyone that died would have died soon anyway so there was never a legitimate call to action”. It matters how many people would have died soon “anyway”, and it matters how much business would have declined without mandated lockdowns. Dismissing a class of misery is not justified merely because that class was not the whole affected population.

      • Don Monfort

        We get it, jimmy. Blame Trump. Keep it shutdown as long as possible so the economic situation sucks come November. It won’t work.

      • Matthew,

        You were the one just up above who wrote

        “almost all job losses were the result of formally decreed lockdowns”

        “all of the shutdowns were instituted and maintained by Governors’ decrees”

        But now you are writing

        “Who has claimed that lifting the lockdown was “all that was needed” or that business would immediately boom? Nobody.

        You are neglecting to consider that the lockdown was not universally either/or; but clear cut in some cases and less so in others.

        Some of the economic slowdown was caused by, and is maintained by, voluntary social distancing. Lockdowns had additional effects, and those are being maintained by Governors’ decrees.”

        Which way is it?

        Your second points are in pretty close agreement with my own points. The lockdowns have become a talking point and are being blamed for all of the problems arising from the this disaster of a response by the federal government. That is why Trump is tweeting about it so much. He needs somebody else to blame for the mess. So blame the Democratic governors and the Democrats and pretend the Republican governors didn’t have lockdowns of their own. Urge everybody back to work without adequate testing while everybody around you is tested daily. Listen to your favorite news channel where the hosts are working remotely from their homes and telling everybody else to get out there and mingle. Pathetic.

      • Don Monfort

        Well jimmy, you’ll only have to suffer another four and a half years of Trump. You forgot to mention he played golf, while the country burned.

      • James Cross: Which way is it?

        It’s a mixture.

        Job losses in the airlines industry mostly resulted from voluntary reductions in air travel. Many job losses in the hospitality industry were caused by the voluntary cancellations and virtualizations of conventions; lockdowns caused more. Most job losses in the National Parks, state parks, beaches, golf courses, open air daytime sports, and other vacation spots were caused by the government lockdowns. Long durations of shutdowns in manufacturing and merchandizing were caused by the lockdown decrees; same with hospitals. OTOH, job losses in the big box retailers were offset by hiring in the online retailers and delivery companies.

        As the lockdowns are ending, business is gradually picking up. Auto manufacturing is resuming, for example, slowed in part by the lockdowns in the parts manufacturers. Home remodeling and some other construction was never locked down, but lockdowns in manufacturing produced shortages in hardware, such as kitchen sinks and faucets.

        Evaluation of governors has to be done on a case-by-case basis. It’s hard to claim anyone did worse than Gov Cuomo. Gov Newsome of CA did well by acting soon; but he followed up by relaxing the regulations too slowly. The press and some other critics ought to apologize for vilifying Governors Kemp and de Santis.

      • James Cross: while the bodies are piling up in the street.

        get a grip. Any “piling up” is done in the trucks outside the retirement homes.

      • James Cross: Practically the entire middle of the country never enacted restrictions or have lifted most of them.

        Almost all manufacturing was shut down. “or have lifted them” is irrelevant to your claim that the lockdowns had no effects.

      • Jim and Yoshua are engaging in writing revisionist history even before the ink dries.

      • James Cross: Texas Economy In ‘Tailspin’ According To Dallas Federal Reserve

        You see the same evidence in Sweden which used few or no restrictions. They still are hit with economic mess. Why?

        Texas: it’s a shame that talented and well-informed people use such idiotic language, but that is idiotic. OTOH, Texas’ economy won’t rebound fully as long as demand for petroleum remains low. Chip manufacturing will resume, and more companies will move there from California.

        Sweden: countries in lockdown or with travel restrictions have not bought its exports.

      • “If lifting the lockdown was all that was needed, then business should be booming in Texas now.”

        You do know your link shows Texas with unemployment claims well below the national average, right? And specifically says most unemployment was in recreation, food service and hotels. So, yes I think as restaurants re-open they will rehire their staffs. Hotels will probably be slower, but in my neck of the woods they are picking up.
        Here In Virginia, restaurants are opening with outside seating in parking lots, patios and under tents in yards. Recreation is also re-opening slowly but surely- indoor sites no, but outdoor yes. All of these places are rehiring their staffs.

    • “The cause is simply that people do not feel safe.”

      I feel safe. Many things may happen to me, but I go on and try to do good things. I do not roll up into a ball and cry. If I did, who would laud that?

      So I can agree, the problem is people, who vote for those who agree with them. I think the solution is to for each of us to get a grip. Not more government programs.

  100. Singapore case fatality rate is @ 0.07%

    Gee, I wonder how they kept it so low?

  101. Curious George

    “isolation of sick people and those they have had contact with” – in the last two weeks. A medieval solution to a really deadly disease. The Precautionary Principle is the real problem. Beaches and parks closed. Businesses voluntarily shutting down by Governor’s orders.
    While I agree that more testing is needed, please mention a possibility of a treatment or vaccine. This is a problem of research and development, not just building a manufacturing capacity. Without that hope, the virus becomes a God’s punishment in a very medieval way.

  102. DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    5/10/2020 24,835 -2,878 -10.3 287,829
    5/11/2020 21,122 -3,713 -14.9 540,847
    5/12/2020 19,534 -1,588 -7.5 164,139
    5/13/2020 23,704 4,170 21.3 340,173
    5/14/2020 21,710 -1,994 -8.4 340,721
    5/15/2020 29,276 7,566 25.8 385,164
    5/16/2020 25,812 -3,464 -11.8 433,742
    5/17/2020 20,716 -5,096 -19.7 860,733
    5/18/2020 18,631 -2,103 -10.1 576,617
    5/19/2020 23,764 5,133 27.5 477,701
    5/20/2020 18,882 -4,882 20.5 357,771
    5/21/2020 24,816 5,234 31.4 1,501,704
    5/22/2020 27,559 2,743 11 429,222
    5/23/2020 25,349 -2,210 -8 472,287
    5/24/2020 19,173 -6,176 24.3 368,126
    5/25/2020 19,608 435 2.2 419,573
    5/26/2020 20,088 480 2.4 377,548
    20,088 is 5.2% of total tests.
    I thought today we would have seen total tests way above 500,000. Maybe tomorrow. We must save the work you have done. Congress will be back in a couple of days and then it is all over.

  103. IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE NOBODY SHOWED UP FOR THE FINAL BATTLE.. YOU FOUGHT A GOOD FIGHT. WE JUST FELL A LITTLE SHORT.

    • Whatever it is that you are talking about, RC, we are sorry. I would have been there, if I had known.

    • In the last 7 days they have done almost 4 million tests. It could be that in the last 14 days there are not many escential workers that have not been tested. We will have to see if we can hold it at 5.2 infected individuals per 100.

      • Don Monfort

        You are starting to make a little sense there, Robert. What does ISOLATED mean? If we can get you to be less cryptic, we might be able to use you. Why is “it all over”, when Congress comes back?

  104. Re: Hamster Study.

    They placed a tube between cages, and had one of three setups: a fan, a cotton membrane: a surgical membrane.

    As far as replicating masks, masks don’t cover ever part of your body, your eyes, ears, skin, face, hands, like the membrane simulates.

    Add to that the fact that most masks fit poorly, Many are improperly worn, and they cause people to touch their face more, well,

    I call BS at their “70% effectivity”

  105. Over half of the total tests performed since the beginning were done in the last 14 days. I will ask that if your last test was before the 22nd you get retested. I believe the majority of the infected are still in the escential workers.

  106. another difficulty arises in SARS CoV-2 vaccine research:
    https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/low-virus-rate-leaves-oxford-vaccine-trial-with-only-50-percent-chance-20200524-p54vvu.html

    A question was raised whether it would be ethical to inocculate the “vaccinated” (active vaccine and control group) with a live virus 2 weeks or so after the vaccination. Personally, I would volunteer for such a study (as long as vaccine assignment was randomized and the trial was double blind. But at age 73 and with comorbidities, I expect I would not be permitted to enroll.

  107. This is another estimate of deaths in nursing homes. It’s higher than the 33% estimated by the NYT and it doesn’t include all the states. It may be months before a reliable number comes out. The most interesting statistic is that N.Y. is 13% or so while many states are over 60%. More reasons to wonder about the data from them.

    https://freopp.org/the-covid-19-nursing-home-crisis-by-the-numbers-3a47433c3f70

    • Afterthought

      How is it a dozen or so states get away with not making public data on deaths in nursing homes? Indicates a strong nursing home lobby. To prepare for future pandemics every conceivable bit of information from this one is necessary.

    • And then there are all the people dying at home without being tested.

      • Don Monfort

        Who? How many? Where? We’ll send somebody to pick them up. How do you know these things, joshie? AOC?

      • That’s a real thing. It happened to a co-worker of mine. Died at home, no test was or will be performed.
        You do have to be careful with that, however. People either cannot or will not go to their doctor’s office, hospital or emergency care place. All of those places are where you are guaranteed to meet someone with Covid if the virus is active in your community.
        As a result, people are staying home when they are not feeling well and dying at home of heart failure, stroke, or other ailments that is typically caught earlier.
        .

  108. The CDC’s New ‘Best Estimate’ Implies a COVID-19 Infection Fatality Rate Below 0.3%

    Lower than 1968.

    Nobody new early on, but this appears to be an example of the precautionary principle causing harm.

    I hope this is a learning experience.

    • > Lower than 1968.

      Estimate of excess deaths in the US during the 1968 flu epidemic is 100k.

      We’re at that already, and that is with extraordinary efforts to keep the fatalities down.

      > Nobody new early on, but this appears to be an example of the precautionary principle causing harm.

      >> I hope this is a learning experience.I hope this is a learning experience.

      Yah. Maybe some people will learn to be more circumspect about how they draw conclusions in complex situations!

      • Don Monfort

        The population of the U.S. in 1968 was 200 million, joshie.

      • Try telling someone who’s family member died that it shouldn’t matter as much because the population is bigger now. See how well that goes over.

        The point is that the fatality rate isn’t the only measure of the impact. The number of dead (and sick) is also relevant. As is, of course, how infectious the disease is and the effectiveness of treatments, existence of vaccines, etc.

        Consider the impact of SARS. A higher fatality rate by far. But the impact was far less.

        And, there is still widespread disagreement over the fatality rate. Funny how now you want to go with the CDC.

        You’d be better off if you actually followed through with not reading my comments – although we all know you’re too masochistic to maintain that discipline.

        BTW, was it 6,000?

      • I think the population adjusted number is 170,000 approximately. Also bear in mind that we are probably better now at testing and finding more of those who died with covid19 than in 1968.

      • You still haven’t grasped how pandemics are measured in reality, little Joshie.

        Deaths per 10 million – a RATIO. This is a pandemic, not a school shoutout. Only people with weak political agendas think raw death numbers in a pandemic show anything useful.

        So, Taiwan has the best ratio we know of as things are today. And *without* lockdown: about 3 deaths per 10 million population.

        Of course you understand this – it just doesn’t suit your political agenda.

      • And iandl –

        My whole point is that it’s befits we failed to do what Taiwan did that we had “lockdowns”. If Trump et al. had put policies in place like the competent federal government of Taiwan, shelter in place orders would have been unnecessaru. Without the policies implemented in places like Taiwan, the economic harm would be much the same whether shelter in place orders were isduee or not.

        But you and I totally agree, that much pain in all respects could have been avoidrd had we had a competent federal government that implemented the types of policies implemented by the federal government of Taiwan: Less economic pain, less illness, and fewer deaths.

        Thank you for acknowledging that the Trump administration completely missed the boat – with tragic and horrible and disastrous results.

        It can be very hard to get Trump supporters to acknowledge that. I commend you

      • Don Monfort

        Really clumsy construction of a straw man, joshie: “Try telling someone who’s family member died that it shouldn’t matter as much because the population is bigger now. See how well that goes over.”

        Judith should delete this crap.

      • “Estimate of excess deaths in the US during the 1968 flu epidemic is 100k.”

        Of course, proportionate to 1968 population, a comparable figure would be 170k.

        And probably more than that.

        The US is much older in 2020 than it was in 1968:
        There appear to be about three to five times as many old people today than there were in 1968.

        And, US population is a lot fatter than it was in 1968.

        But again, the CFR is a relative number,
        so yes, this is a good example of precaution causing harm.

        “We’re at that already, and that is with extraordinary efforts to keep the fatalities down.”

        There is a cognitive bias for us to believe what we’re doing is effective, because it gives us a comforting feeling of being in control.

        I believe this is an example of such bias.

      • TE –

        > There is a cognitive bias for us to believe what we’re doing is effective, because it gives us a comforting feeling of being in control.

        I believe this is an example of such bias.

        We are quite clearly not in control. Not even close. We are in the middle of a remarkably chaotic and uncontrolled situation. And I certainly don’t think that what WE’RE doing is remotely effective in a relairc sense. So you’re barking up the entirely wrong tree. I think thsr we WE have done is astonishly INNEFECTIVE.

        Nonetheless, there is a basic logic that with a highly infectious disease at the height of the spread, shelter in place orders reduce infections.

        I don’t think it’s a perfect response by any means. There are, in fact, probably differential economic COSTS over just letting the virus run wild, although its impossible to say with any confidence, at least least in the short term. Any there are likely increased infections at some level – say from people infecting other people in their homes – even if I am reasonably sure that in the short term (if not necessarily the long term) in balance the infections are reduced due to a slowed rate of spread.

        And a “bias, ” as in a sense of control, can take many forms. Including one where people people come quite certain that they know the answer to questions involving extremely complex dynamics with huge uncertainties.

        I believe I see many such examples in people who are seeking to diminish the lethality of COVID.

        Case in point, there is obviously a lot of uncertainty related to the fatality rate of COVID, just as there is a lot of uncertainty as to the fatality of the 1968 epidemic

        But beyond that, COVID is very infectious so there is far more to the story than the fatality rate. The age of our population may help explain the huge impact of the disease, but it hardly diminishes thst impact in itself. Further, we have much in the way of medical procedures that help to compensate for the increased median age. In fact, that is part of the reason for our increased life expectancy – which is a contributing component of our higher median age (some 10% higher than in 1968}.

        Obesity is greater, and smoking is far less, and in the end people live longer – and why would that be?

        Respect uncertainty. Don’t fall into the bias of thinking you know more than you know. You are the easiest person for you to fool.

      • Josh, For me to take your claim that lockdowns worked seriously you will need to show some data. My reading of the data is that states that have re-opened have no surge in cases, hospitalizations, or deaths. That would indicate that the lockdown may have done little beyond the voluntary social distancing already taking place. States that are continuing lockdown don’t seem to be driving new infections down dramatically either.

        I found TE’s last comment very informative. I’d forgotten how much younger the country was in 1968.

      • It’s you who “missed the boat”, little Joshie.

        The whole point of the Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong group example is that they already knew how to cope with a pandemic without locking down. They had prepared from SARS-1.

        No Western country had. That includes all the US administrations in the last 20 years, even though their viral laboratories were all in the loop. Nothing to do with your childish politics, just Western bureaucratic/political complacent obduracy.

        Like you’re persistently showing here.

      • iandl –

        > The whole point of the Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong group example is that they already knew how to cope with a pandemic without locking down. They had prepared from SARS-1.

        Oh. Right. And Koreans and Taiwanese and in Hong Kong, yheu tint speak English – so know way anyone here could have gotten advice.

        Excellent point. Now why didn’t i think of that? Lsck of brain power, prolly.

        Oh, and in New Zealand they have those funny ascents.

        Hard to understand.

      • TE –

        This article makes my point rather well –

        –snip–

        Why this narrative and this pouncing on the report, then? Partly, it’s because we wanted a narrative to cling onto.

        –snip–

        https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2020/05/21/1590091709000/It-s-all-very-well–following-the-science—but-is-the-science-any-good–/

    • Yes it does indeed seem as if Ioannidis and his collaborators were right all along. If one further reduces the IFR to exclude nursing deaths, it drops to 0.13% for those outside homes. About 2.5 million live in these settings and are often quite ill already. 380,000 per year will die of infections on average.

      Further, I am starting to see covid19 is starting to decline across the board and I doubt if social distancing is the only reason. Perhaps overlap partial immunity, heavy culling of the most vulnerabole (very sad though it is), warming weather, more sunshine. All could be making a contribution.

      In 3 months when economic ruin faces many in the face, we will look back and ask how we could have been so stupid. I’ll be fine, but the less fortunate will bear the brunt of economic desperation.

    • Well, it is true that IFR’s will vary depending on the age structure of those infected. It is possible that in Spain and NYC many more vulnerable people (in nursing homes) were infected than their percentage of the population in which one would expect a higher IFR. Italy for example has the oldest population in Europe so their IFR would be expected to be at the high end.

    • Bergstrom, an expert in modeling and computer simulations, said the numbers seemed inconsistent with real-world findings.

      “Estimates of the numbers infected in places like NYC are way out of line with these estimates. Let us remember that the number of deaths in NYC right now are far more than we would expect if every adult and child in the city had been infected with a flu-like virus. This is not the flu. It is COVID,” Bergstrom said.

      https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/22/health/cdc-coronavirus-estimates-symptoms-deaths/index.html

      • And then consider that a not insignificant # of people left NYC.

      • James, There are a lot of reasons why New York City might be an outlier.

        1. Generally, there is some evidence CDC death statistics from covid19 are too high. Birx believes they aRE 25% too high. Colorado just last week reduced their count by 25%. Particularly in New York City doctors probably had very little time to do a good job with death certificates and the easiest thing would be to put down covid19. New York added a category of “assumed” covid19 deaths which is about 25% of the total. There is no solid evidence for this. People dying at home may have been afraid to go to the hospital even if they had a heart attack or stroke.
        2. There may have been differential exposure of nursing home and hospital patients who have a much higher IFR than the whole population.
        3. The health care system was quite stressed which resulted in suboptimal care. Also in the early stages treatments will be less effective. Doctors learn over time.
        4. I expect New York city to be quite unrepresentative of the country as a whole. Definitely more minorities and much more crowded conditions so viral loads would be a lot higher.

        The final answer will never be known with certitude but we need to try to use data from more representative parts of the country.

    • “The best way to nail down the therapeutic risks and benefits of drugs is through randomized double blind placebo controlled clinical trials in which patients are randomly assigned to either the treatment group or the placebo group.”
      Which they didn’t do. Who is in what world? The linked article is a snippet. Lacks depth.
      Thank you. I’d forgotten Reason has a weekly podcast I can listen to while holed up in my climate change bunker, hiding for the world.

    • We done debunked that, rustle. Try to catch up.

    • Well, was the Lancet data collection and analysis conducted, shall we say properly? Or, was it fabrication?

      https://defyccc.com/anti-hcq-paper-in-the-lancet-uses-fabricated-data/#more-65807

      At the very least, there is a huge conflict of interest here. They used the data provided by a profit making enterprise owned and run by one of the authors. What are the bona fides of this vast data repository? Doesn’t look good.
      This could be a very big scandal.

      From the same link, some research that brutally contradicts the Lancet story:

      “Good news: Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk Covid-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis, Harvey A Risch, May 27, 2020, American Journal of Epidemiology

      Five studies, including two controlled clinical trials, have demonstrated significant major outpatient treatment efficacy. Hydroxychloroquine+azithromycin has been used as standard-of-care in more than 300,000 older adults with multicomorbidities, with estimated proportion diagnosed with cardiac arrhythmias attributable to the medications 47/100,000 users … These medications need to be widely available and promoted immediately for physicians to prescribe.”

      Link to the American Journal of Epidemiology:

      https://academic.oup.com/aje/advance-article/doi/10.1093/aje/kwaa093/5847586

      • Don Monfort

        Judith, my comments in moderation should stay there, until I find out if the basis is legitimate.

      • Don Monfort

        Don’t have time to go further into this, but my impression now is that theI can’t find any evidence to support the accusation that the data is ____. I apologize to all who may see the comment and to the authors of the flawed study in Lancet. I am going to play golf for the next few weeks and leave this foolishness to others.

  109. Matthew R Marler

    France regulatory body bans HCQ for COVID-19, except for clinical trials:
    http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/272118-france-halts-hydroxychloroquine-for-coronavirus-treatment

  110. DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    5/19/2020 23,764 5,133 27.5 477,701
    5/20/2020 18,882 -4,882 20.5 357,771
    5/21/2020 24,816 5,234 31.4 1,501,704
    5/22/2020 27,559 2,743 11 429,222
    5/23/2020 25,349 -2,210 -8 472,287
    5/24/2020 19,173 -6,176 24.3 368,126
    5/25/2020 19,608 435 2.2 419,573
    5/26/2020 20,088 480 2.4 377,548
    5/27/2020 20,648 560 2.7 357,949
    5/28/2020 19,421 -1,227 5.9 460,934
    19,421 is 4.2% of total tests.
    Back around the 21st I asked for the essential workers to make an exerted effort to hit the testing system with everything we had. I am asking to do it again. We are treading water at about 20,000. That means the 14-day limit is removing 20,000 a day by curing them, we are removing 20,000 a day by asking them to self-isolate, and the infected are infecting 40,000 a day. The object of this is to see if the very large number of tests can get the percentage of positive to total close to 1% or lower.

  111. Just wanted to congratulate the Trump administration. We’re all the way up to #34 in tests per million.

    Right behind Belarus. Amazing considering how much of a richer country than we are.

    Oh….wait…

    Well, who knows, maybe in time we’ll even get past Latvia at #29.

  112. > Why Does the CDC Think the COVID-19 Fatality Rate Is So Low, and Why Won’t It Tell Anyone?

    –snip–

    Last week I was searching the Internet for some COVID-19 statistic or other, and I came across a new CDC website. The site featured some numbers the federal government is using to model the spread of the epidemic. One in particular caught my eye: 0.4 percent, the “current best estimate” of the disease’s “case fatality rate.” The document also said that 35 percent of infections are asymptomatic, which suggests the infection fatality rate is just 0.26 percent.

    These numbers struck me as low for several reasons. For one thing, the virus has already killed 0.2 percent of all New Yorkers, and obviously a much higher percentage of those who’ve actually been infected in the city. For another, if we’ve had 100,000 deaths nationwide and a CFR of 0.4 percent, that means we’ve had 25 million symptomatic cases; including cases without symptoms, more than 10 percent of the entire country has been infected, which seems out of sync with what we’re hearing from serology tests. Individual studies and reviews of the evidence tend to put the infection fatality rate somewhere around 0.5 to 1 percent, though there’s at least one dissenting review that puts it lower (while managing not to include any studies finding a fatality rate above 0.5 percent, of which there are plenty).

    –snip–

    Oh well, just a bunch of lefty loons, right?

    Oh…wait….

    https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/why-does-the-cdc-think-the-covid-19-fatality-rate-is-so-low-and-why-wont-it-tell-anyone/

    • And don’t forget with those numbers from NYC.

      1) prolly the number of deaths is considerably higher (subtract those who might be questionable due to “died with” from the number who died without testing). Consider the excess deaths as an indicator.

      2) a significant # of New Yorkers left the city…so for that reason also the death rate in NYC is probably higher than the official number divided by the total population.

    • How to run the CDC: Put some information out. Stick with that information until you have better information.
      If unsure of newer information, stick with the previous information.
      What not to do. Pull the existing information.
      The newer information may be better, but in the opinion of who?

      If the information in question contains bias, so what?
      I feel we have over reacted.

  113. Comment above went to moderation. this is big:

    “Good news: Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk Covid-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis, Harvey A Risch, May 27, 2020, American Journal of Epidemiology

    Five studies, including two controlled clinical trials, have demonstrated significant major outpatient treatment efficacy. Hydroxychloroquine+azithromycin has been used as standard-of-care in more than 300,000 older adults with multicomorbidities, with estimated proportion diagnosed with cardiac arrhythmias attributable to the medications 47/100,000 users … These medications need to be widely available and promoted immediately for physicians to prescribe.”

    Link to the American Journal of Epidemiology:

    https://academic.oup.com/aje/advance-article/doi/10.1093/aje/kwaa093/5847586

    • Wait, gotta read all that. Not sure why the American Journal of Epidemiology would publish.

      • Don Monfort

        A lot to wade through there. One doc reviewing HCQ safety and effectiveness. Not going to move the discussion along. I am off to play golf.

  114. Sweden has been held up as an example of common sense prevailing against misguided lockdown over-reaction and irrational economic self-harm.

    Well Sweden now is in poor shape. It’s quietly floated to #1 in the international league of Covid deaths per capita.

    And very disturbing reports have emerged from Sweden, from Swedish friends and also media articles like this one:

    https://www.rt.com/op-ed/490012-swedish-directives-covid-elderly-cruel/

    Astonishingly it seems that Sweden are doubling down so hard on their cultivated image as “the one sensible country” that policies bordering on human rights abuse are being enacted. Essentially it seems that intensive medical intervention is being denied to covid19 patients as a deliberate policy and mandate. Intensive care and oxygen are apparently forbidden to be offered to old patients with the virus.

    A Swedish friend told me that medical and care home staff who complain about absence of PPE (personal protective equipment) are being sacked for doing so. And the country including its media seem to be coming together to stifle the publicity of any adverse news and sweep under the carpet the whole covid19 outbreak and its growing seriousness in Sweden.

    It’s a situation that could reach breaking point sometime soon. Or – worse – there could be more silence and communal complicity.

    One wonders with what Ikea will be filling their mattresses in the following months?

  115. Interesting development: now that the word economy has collapsed, the UN is introducing “Happytalism,” the next step up from capitalism. No, I’m not making this up. This is apparently part of the new world order introduced, conveniently, after a suitable crisis. https://unnwo.org/

    Ya can’t make this stuff up, folks. Even I couldn’t have imagined it. “Happytalism.” Everyone on board?

  116. Open letter criticizing the Lancet paper on HCQ;

    https://zenodo.org/record/3862789#.XtBCUi-z2CP

    Lots o’ signatories.

  117. –snip–

    Death threats after a trial on chloroquine for COVID-19

    Unfavorable results from a chloroquine clinical trial led to death threats and animosity towards researchers in Brazil. Estella Ektorp reports.

    “The only conclusion you can take from the study is that this drug, when used in high doses, is not safe”, declared Marcus Lacerda, the principal investigator of the first randomised controlled clinical trial that tested chloroquine, a congener of the supposedly less toxic hydroxychloroquine, to treat patients with severe symptoms of COVID-19. The study involved 21 research institutions in Brazil, Spain, and Mozambique and was initially available on the reprint repository medRxiv and later published in JAMA.

    The study was carried out in the city of Manaus, in the Brazilian state of Amazon, and aimed to evaluate two different doses of chloroquine diphosphate (CQ). While 41 patients received a high dose of 600 mg of CQ twice daily for 10 days, the other group of 40 patients received a lower dose of 450 mg daily for 10 days. Patients in both arms received 500 mg of azithromycin daily for 5 days. On day 5, the high-dose arm of the study had to be interrupted due to the death of 11 patients, against four in the low-dose group. “This was a phase 2 study to evaluate safety and we used a high dose of chloroquine that has been used before” said Lacerda. This same high dose was previously used to treat oncological patients for periods much longer than 10 days; it was also used in China with COVID-19 patients.

    However, the unfavorable outcome of the study provoked the animosity of those who support using chloroquine to treat COVID-19, first in the USA, and then in Brazil. Micheal Coudrey, an American political activist with 256 700 Twitter followers referred to the study as “a left-wing funded study that intentionally administered extremely high doses and used a less-safe version of the drug hydroxychloroquine, then used this as a pretense to indicate that chloroquine was ineffective and dangerous”. Soon after, Brazilian president’s son Eduardo Bolsonaro (who has 2 million Twitter followers) called it “a fake study aimed at demonizing the drug”.

    In another inflamed tweet, Eduardo Bolsonaro claimed that the study’s authors were affiliated to the party funded by former Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and asked for an investigation. Soon after, Lacerda started to receive death threats through social media and had to request police protection, which was kept for more than 2 weeks. “When the paper was published in JAMA, the threats stopped” revealed Lacerda, indicating that publishing the study in a peer-reviewed high-impact journal may have shielded the researcher and his family.

    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30383-2/fulltext

    • Yeah, publishing in a peer-reviewed high-impact journal usually puts a stop to death threats. Brazilian thugs read all the journals.

    • The formerly respectable Lancet has an ax to grind with POTUS and hydroxychloroquine:

      https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31140-5/fulltext

    • Micheal Coudrey is probably right. ANY drug is toxic in a large dose. The phrase toxicologists use is “the dose is the toxin”. If that’s all the study showed the it was a 100% waste of money scientifically (but clearly of value politically).

    • The Right wants there to be an answer from science and the Left, I don’t know? The Right says, We are fine, and the Left says, No we are not.

      Wind Turbines make economic sense and save money. No they don’t. But look at policy. Policy says they do.

      The study hurts. I am still favoring by a bit chloroquine as an early treatment.

      Why am I eating foods with material levels of vitamin D? I can’t prove that’s helping.

    • Something fishy, in Lancetown:

      Scientists Question Validity of Major Hydroxychloroquine Study
      Experts are demanding verification of data and methods used in a study of malaria drugs used to treat Covid-19. The study suggested the drugs may have increased deaths.

  118. This pretty much proves that the Lancet study is fabricated:

  119. Scroll down the thread for the coup de gras comment from Dr. Todaro:

    “Lastly, the Lancet study claims to have collected patient data from 559 hospitals in N America.

    There are 6,146 hospitals in the USA, and >12,000 hospitals in USA, Mexico & Canada.

    Was there really 63,315 COVID-19 hospitalizations in a fraction of the total hospitals by Apr 14?”

    • Don
      This is a huge story and utterly discredits both the Lancet and the WHO. Trump derangement syndrome is real. It will be illuminating to see what follows.

      • I can hardly think of anything sadder and more alarming than that an early treatment for Covid is being deliberately attacked and dismissed. Luckily we have honest physicians willing to speak up, as witness the signatories to the letter of complaint to The Lancet https://zenodo.org/record/3862789#.XtBCUi-z2CP. But the general public only hears the headlines: “Lancet study finds dangers with hydroxychloroquine” and the media seems unwilling to present an honest assessment.

        An old trick: say you’re testing the protocol, but don’t really test the protocol and then report the results you intended anyhow. As Alton Thomson, MD, said of another negative JAMA study on hydroxychloroquine (in the comments section,) “It’s well know that most drugs don’t work when given at inappropriate times. Do a study using them for early intervention.” Yet here’s a limitation of the JAMA study, as stated in the study: “the rapidity with which patients entered the ICU and underwent mechanical ventilation, often concurrently with initiating hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, rendered these outcomes unsuitable for efficacy analyses.” No kidding. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2766117

        What’s going on? What’s going on when an effective, cheap, and relatively safe drug combination for Covid, one of whose “side effects” is that people don’t progress to the ICU (hello, JAMA, are you listening?) is conspired against? I have a hard time believing that with all the good, smart, careful and conscientious people in the world, the ones we have evaluating a treatment in a time of crisis are the most incompetent. Or, maybe they’re just doing what they’re told?

    • It is just another shameful episode from the annals of bad or even fraudulent science in service to political activism. I guess the Lancet must have changed editors as as recently as 3 years ago they published an editorial saying that the brief against science is clear — perhaps half of all the findings are wrong.

      • “It is just another shameful episode from the annals of bad or even fraudulent science in service to political activism. I guess the Lancet must have changed editors as as recently as 3 years ago they published an editorial saying that the brief against science is clear — perhaps half of all the findings are wrong.”

        No, Richard Horton has been editor for quite some time, and these tactics aren’t new. I’ve been saying for a while that if you think climate science is bad, look at vaccine science. I’m dismissed as an anti-vax crank-pot but I’m here to tell you: you ain’t seen nothing, folks. That’s why none of this nonsense is any surprise to me. Horton assumed the posture of “my goodness, look how bad things are,” yet he’s participated fully in it in the past. A very long story, and at its center is Andrew Wakefield. Some of you are shocked! shocked I say! to hear this latest Lancet scandal. Not me.

  120. DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    5/19/2020 23,764 5,133 27.5 477,701
    5/20/2020 18,882 -4,882 -20.5 357,771
    5/21/2020 24,816 5,234 31.4 1,501,704
    5/22/2020 27,559 2,743 11 429,222
    5/23/2020 25,349 -2,210 -8 472,287
    5/24/2020 19,173 -6,176 -24.3 368,126
    5/25/2020 19,608 435 2.2 419,573
    5/26/2020 20,088 480 2.4 377,548
    5/27/2020 20,648 560 2.7 357,949
    5/28/2020 19,421 -1,227 -5.9 460,934
    5/29/2020 22,452 3,031 15.5 345,392
    22,452 is 6.5% of total tests. yesterday it was 4.2% . A gain of 54.7%
    This means we lost control and by tomorroww at this time the virus infected walkig the streets of the USA will have doulbed in 48 hours.
    WE NEED TO ACT NOW. TEST, TEST, TEST.

  121. They call it #LancetGate in Europe:

    https://twitter.com/hashtag/lancetgate?src=hashtag_click

    Lancet has issued a “correction” on the ersatz paper’s Aussie hospital data that is clearly false, claiming an Asian hospital was mixed in with Aussie hospitals:

    “The Australian Data in the Lancet HCQ Study are Clearly Impossible”

    If you want a subscription to Lancet, just wait a few days. There will soon be a going out of business SALE!

  122. Another attempt to show that lockdown orders worked:
    https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2766673?guestAccessKey=0ec81d89-97ca-4714-8bc1-ddac3a1ccf72&utm_source=silverchair&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=article_alert-jama&utm_term=mostread&utm_content=olf-widget_05292020

    In brief, by median effective date after lockdown order (median incubation period estimated at 12 days), actual time course of hospitalizations diverged from exponential trend up to that time. In 4 states for which enough data were available for a reasonable comparison, by the authors’ inclusion criteria: Colorado, Minnesota, Ohio,Virginia. Among states issuing a statewide stay-at-home order, we identified states with at least 7 consecutive days of cumulative hospitalization data for COVID-19 (including patients currently hospitalized and those discharged) before the stay-at-home order date and at least 17 days following the order date.

    It would have been useful to have at least a few of the states that avoided lockdown orders displayed the same way.

    • Matt –

      > It would have been useful to have at least a few of the states that avoided lockdown orders displayed the same way.

      Why? So you could find out what we already know the states that avoided “lockdowns” didn’t need “lockdowns” because their rates of spread was lower?

      • Joshua: Why? So you could find out what we already know the states that avoided “lockdowns” didn’t need “lockdowns” because their rates of spread was lower?

        It isn’t just about rate of spread, it’s about whether there is a measurable effect of the lockdown order. Also, if there is an effect of lockdown, can you estimate when the effect took hold. Tamino, in comparing Sweden and Switzerland, did not allow for the appearance of cases where the infection predated the lockdown (nor did his analysis rule it out.)

      • Matt –

        > It isn’t just about rate of spread, it’s about whether there is a measurable effect of the lockdown order.

        But you can’t tell that by comparing to states that had no “lockdown” orders because, by definition, the conditions in those states were different.

        This is a sampling issue.

        https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-verizon&sxsrf=ALeKk02PCdz8pev7OX_pUbdmFFioWw-Z5A:1590851782018&q=Abraham+Wald+survivorship+bias&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjk0u3a8NvpAhVhoHIEHV7vDBsQ7xYoAHoECAoQAg&biw=412&bih=652&dpr=2.63

      • Joshua: But you can’t tell that by comparing to states that had no “lockdown” orders because, by definition, the conditions in those states were different.

        Probably. I made a similar point about the comparison of Switzerland to Sweden. But I would not want to prejudge the data. There could be some quantifiable “shape” parameter that is consistently different in the lockdown states vs the no-lockdown states. Quantifying shapes is a rich subject in statistics, and I would not want to bet in advance that a comparison could not be calculable.

      • Matt –

        Seems fair enough.

  123. –snip–

    “The current best estimates for the infection fatality risk are between 0.5% and 1%,” says Caitlin Rivers, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.

    –snip–

    The headline says that the IFR is lower than expected. But then says it’s multiples of estimates from the CDC and Ioannidis.

    https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/05/28/863944333/antibody-tests-point-to-lower-death-rate-for-the-coronavirus-than-first-thought

  124. DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    5/19/2020 23,764 5,133 27.5 477,701
    5/20/2020 18,882 -4,882 -20.5 357,771
    5/21/2020 24,816 5,234 31.4 1,501,704
    5/22/2020 27,559 2,743 11 429,222
    5/23/2020 25,349 -2,210 -8 472,287
    5/24/2020 19,173 -6,176 -24.3 368,126
    5/25/2020 19,608 435 2.2 419,573
    5/26/2020 20,088 480 2.4 377,548
    5/27/2020 20,648 560 2.7 357,949
    5/28/2020 19,421 -1,227 -5.9 460,934
    5/29/2020 22,452 3,031 15.5 345,392
    5/30/2029 27,263 4,811 21.4 491,402
    27,263 is 5.5% of total tests. that is 15.3% less than yesterday.
    You have done over a million in a day before. Talk to your fellow workers.
    TEST TEST TEST

  125. This is hilarious:

    –snip–

    LOS ANGELES (CBSLA) – While a new round of antibody testing appeared to indicate that Los Angeles County has done a good job limiting the spread of the coronavirus, it also showed that the region is still not close to achieving herd immunity even as the number of coronavirus cases countywide crossed the 40,000-mark Wednesday.

    There were 1,324 new L.A. County coronavirus cases and 57 deaths reported Wednesday. It brings the total number of cases to 40,857, and the death toll to 1,970.

    Officials also Tuesday released the results from the second phase of an ongoing antibody study being conducted by USC and the L.A. County Department of Public Health.

    –snip–

    Ok, that’s not the hilarious part. Here’s the hilarious part:

    –snip–

    1,014 Angelenos were tested from May 8-12 in a drive-thru and in-home format. 2.1% of them tested positive for coronavirus antibodies, officials announced.

    This was significantly down from the 4.65% who tested positive in the first phase of testing, which was conducted April 10-14, the results of which were published Monday in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

    –snip–

    But wait. It gets even more hilarious.

    –snip–

    The second phase was conducted at a completely different site than the first phase. There was also more of an effort made to ensure Latinos, Asians and African-Americans took part in the second phase, L.A. County Public Heath Director Dr. Barbara Ferrer disclosed.

    –snip–

    So they included a more representative sample, and the number *went down,” which is in complete contradiction to their rationalization for why the numbers in their earlier tests were low. But wait, it gets even funnier still:

    –snip–

    “If you pooled the results across the two waves…about three percent tested positive,” lead investigator Dr. Neeraj Sood, a USC professor of public policy, told reporters at a news briefing Wednesday.

    –snip–

    What? If you pooled the results? He’s saying that you should basically disregard the first findings, that they used to stage a national publicity campaign to weigh in on public health policy options, and to say that the policies in place were “draconian” and pool them with the 2nd findings.

    Because that would make the numbers more to their liking?

    Remarkable!

    https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2020/05/20/la-county-still-far-away-from-herd-immunity-new-antibody-numbers-show/

    • If no one else in LA County dies from COVID 19, that’s a 0.71 IFR.

      I’m sure Ioannidis will launch a national TV campaign to explain why his research was wrong. :-)

    • Your sarcasm aside, it’s quite possible that both samples are valid. All this indicates is that we still need to do larger and more representative samples. I am surprised that a sample with more “disadvantaged” people showed a lower positive rate however. I have read elsewhere that these tests can have up to a 30% false negative rate. False positive rates are much much lower.

      A much larger issue is how deaths are counted in this epidemic in the US. Everyone who tests positive even if they die from a heart attack is counted. Birx thinks CDC numbers are 25% too high and Colorado agreed last week and reduced their’s by 25%.

      I am predicting that once the worst is past we will see a few months with lower than expected mortality. That will be due to many of those on deaths door having their deaths accelerated by covid19. There is already a hint of that effect in Europe.

  126. Garbage ‘Science’: Be Wary Of What You’re Being Told
    https://www.peakprosperity.com/garbage-science-be-wary-of-what-youre-being-told/

  127. Little bitty Dr. Fauci is not very bright. Snookered by #lancetgate:

  128. Why has the mainstream media been ganging up against HCQ? Why have at least two published papers in high-impact medical journals supposedly debunked HCQ, yet both of these were highly flawed and completely unreliable? Meanwhile numerous physicians and physician groups stand behind HCQ. Why have some states even limited physician access to this drug?

    Why are we told that everyone is going to die from this when we know that Covid’s victims are overwhelmingly the elderly, who are something like 80% of fatalities? Children are rarely harmed.

    Why are we told that Covid is highly contagious and deadly when Florida, with a population greater than NY’s, has had about 1/3 of the deaths of NY despite having so many elderly residents? Kids were partying in Florida in March and buying beer and burgers and hotel rooms from the locals, supposedly spreading Covid everywhere except in the state where they all congregated. The terrible spread and spike in deaths from all those kids supposedly only happened when those kids went back home.

    I’m not religious, but so far this statement from members of the Catholic church (including Archbishops as well as laypersons) strikes me as the purest statement of what’s going on: this is an evil of a proportion that too many find unbelievable. Yet look around, and we see active exaggeration of deaths, active and deliberate suppression of sound treatment, and active imposition of coercive measures against the population based on active, continuous, and unfounded broadcasts of fear and panic. https://veritasliberabitvos.info/appeal/

    • Don132: Why are we told that everyone is going to die from this

      No one has said everyone is going to die.

      Why have some states even limited physician access to this drug?
      The decision was wrong in my opinion, but they did it to guarantee supplies would be available to people who needed it for auto-immune disease; as you have noticed, lots of scientists and physicians are less impressed than you are by the “evidence” that HCQ works against SARS CoV-2.

      Why do you pollute your occasional sensible comments with idiocies like those? Why, why, why?

  129. DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    5/19/2020 23,764 5,133 27.5 477,701
    5/20/2020 18,882 -4,882 -20.5 357,771
    5/21/2020 24,816 5,234 31.4 1,501,704
    5/22/2020 27,559 2,743 11 429,222
    5/23/2020 25,349 -2,210 -8 472,287
    5/24/2020 19,173 -6,176 -24.3 368,126
    5/25/2020 19,608 435 2.2 419,573
    5/26/2020 20,088 480 2.4 377,548
    5/27/2020 20,648 560 2.7 357,949
    5/28/2020 19,421 -1,227 -5.9 460,934
    5/29/2020 22,452 3,031 15.5 345,392
    5/30/2020 27,263 4,811 21.4 491,402
    5/31/2020 17,770 -9,493 34.8 402,869
    17,770 is 4.4% of total tests Which is 20% less than yesterday (5.5%).
    WE STILL MUST INCREASE TESTS TO KEEP AHEAD OF THE VIRUS..

    • Does anyone understand what this shows. The only thing that cures this virusis is antibodies made by the body. It can do that out in public or in volintary isolation. All this is trying to get as much as possible in isolation.

      • Don Monfort

        The fear is subsiding, RC. The media is busy covering the riots. Folks will increasingly lose interest in being tested, unless there is a significant resurgence of the virus. Life goes on. You’ll get used to it. One day you will even stop bombarding us with that jumble of numbers. And the ALL CAPS exhortations to do what we ain’t gonna do, unless we come down with worrisome symptoms.

  130. “Why do you pollute your occasional sensible comments with idiocies like those? Why, why, why?”

    Because I care, that’s why.

    The suppression of evidence on HCQ seems deliberate to me, otherwise why not do the simplest thing in the world: test the actual protocol. Please show me where this has been done.

    Yes, I actually do believe that we’re in danger of falling into a new world order of surveillance and tracking, and I thus agree with the statement put out by Catholic clergy.

    Look at the UN new world order, freshly publicized: https://unnwo.org/

    You ready for “Happytalism”?

    What happens when governments are crippled from shutting down and a supposed “second wave” comes in the fall and we might face food shortages in winter and general chaos over this supposedly terrible pandemic? Time for Happytalism to slip in? Time for a new world order? Time for everyone to get tracked and traced so we can know who is safe and who is not? And of course your digital immunity passport, which may very well come in the form of a scannable micro-tattoo, won’t be linked to any other digital information about you, will it? For the good of society, of course: for Happytalism. https://ahrp.org/micro-chip-technology-resurrects-tattoo-identification-medical-surveillance/

    What’s the definition of tyranny? Track, trace, monitor and control dissent? Like the censorship we’re already seeing take place, for our own good?

    If you’re not frightened by the implications of wildly unreasonable response to a fairly minor virus, you should be.

    • Don132: Because I care, that’s why.

      That is not a justification for writing that someone has said everyone is going to die. The more you care the more you ought to aim for accuracy.

      If you’re not frightened by the implications of wildly unreasonable response to a fairly minor virus, you should be.

      fwiw, I did write in opposition to the Draconian tyrannies of California mayors and its Governor.

      • matthewmarler: you’re right. No one said everyone is going to die (except me.) But I look around and I see people absolutely scared to death that Covid is going to kill them or someone else, wearing masks, staying six feet away, and I ask, what in God’s name is going on? Because this is very much like a normal respiratory virus magnified by 24/7 news coverage, and in my opinion we have an effective early treatment. It’s made out to be the new black death. So yes, I exaggerated. You got me.

        If we both disagree with the heavy-handed measures being used to control this, then we’re pretty much on the same page.

      • Don –

        What do you think led you to make such an inaccurate exaggeration?

  131. Here’s a good account of current information on #lancetgate HCQ “study”:

    https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/disputed-hydroxychloroquine-study-brings-scrutiny-to-surgisphere-67595

    Vast majority of the TDS mainstream media is ignoring this, but there are several other similar reports describing the skepticism on the #lancetgate paper that is only growing.

    I predict that this is about to bust wide open. My impression from reading this and other reports is that Dr. Desai’s co-authors are distancing themselves from the supplier of the data, Dr. Desai’s phantom company Surgispheres.

    Desai’s co-authors have offered no defense of the data. They can’t, because they don’t know anything about where it came from, other than it was handed to them by Desai. Why doesn’t Desai ask the nearly 700 hospitals he claims to be working with to allow him to release the masked data and tell where it came from? Surely, many if not most of them would have no problem with that.

    Desai has said in one report I read that his company is audited by DSG, but did not identify the auditor in his lame and very limited response to the criticisms of the paper. I am going to contact DSG tomorrow and inquire if they have ever heard of this character.

    • shady:

      “Court records in Cook County, Illinois, show that Desai is named in three medical malpractice lawsuits filed in the second half of 2019. He tells The Scientist in a statement sent through his public relations representative Michael Roth of Bliss Integrated that while he can’t comment on ongoing litigation, he “deems any lawsuit naming him to be unfounded.”

      He also sent a comment purporting to be from Alan Loren, the executive vice president and chief medical officer of NCH: “Dr. Desai was employed at NCH and resigned in February 2020. We did not have any problems with him while he was here.”

      Asked by The Scientist if he made this statement, Loren says, “What I can tell you is that he was employed here and he did resign. I can’t speak to whether or not there were any problems.” He adds that he spoke to Desai on May 28 and told him that “what I recall is that he resigned. I don’t remember the exact date. And that was it.” “

    • Wow. thanks for the links Don.
      The TDS obsessed media is busy right now. They’re explaining that it’s perfectly safe to gather all your friends together and head out to a restaurant or store now, but only if you intend to burn it.
      If you want to eat at the restaurant or shop at the store, you’re selfishly condemning the city to death by virus.

      • Don Monfort

        Don’t worry, jeff. All the rioters and looters have their “I Tested Negative Certificates” signed by Testing Czar, Robert “Test em All” Clark.

  132. DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    5/19/2020 23,764 5,133 27.5 477,701
    5/20/2020 18,882 -4,882 -20.5 357,771
    5/21/2020 24,816 5,234 31.4 1,501,704
    5/22/2020 27,559 2,743 11 429,222
    5/23/2020 25,349 -2,210 -8 472,287
    5/24/2020 19,173 -6,176 -24.3 368,126
    5/25/2020 19,608 435 2.2 419,573
    5/26/2020 20,088 480 2.4 377,548
    5/27/2020 20,648 560 2.7 357,949
    5/28/2020 19,421 -1,227 -5.9 460,934
    5/29/2020 22,452 3,031 15.5 345,392
    5/30/2020 27,263 4,811 21.4 491,402
    5/31/2020 17,770 -9,493 34.8 402,869
    6/1/2020 19,244 1,474 8.2 432,085
    19,244 is 4.4% of total tests. That is the same as yesterday.We are again treading water. Thar means we must have daily testing well over 500,000 per day to stay ahead of the vitus, if not the doctors will just call this the second wave. The estimated 2.5 to 3 million deaths will be accurate.
    Tomorrow will show if we gave up to the virus.

  133. DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    5/19/2020 23,764 5,133 27.5 477,701
    5/20/2020 18,882 -4,882 -20.5 357,771
    5/21/2020 24,816 5,234 31.4 1,501,704
    5/22/2020 27,559 2,743 11 429,222
    5/23/2020 25,349 -2,210 -8 472,287
    5/24/2020 19,173 -6,176 -24.3 368,126
    5/25/2020 19,608 435 2.2 419,573
    5/26/2020 20,088 480 2.4 377,548
    5/27/2020 20,648 560 2.7 357,949
    5/28/2020 19,421 -1,227 -5.9 460,934
    5/29/2020 22,452 3,031 15.5 345,392
    5/30/2020 27,263 4,811 21.4 491,402
    5/31/2020 17,770 -9,493 34.8 402,869
    6/1/2020 19,244 1,474 8.2 432,085
    6/2/2020 17,743 -1,501 -7.8 401,189
    17,743 is 4.4% of total tests. treading water.
    we need to get well above 500,000 tests daily to beat the virus.

    • 6/2/2020 23,012 3,768 19,5 465,374
      I did it 3 hours to early.This should be the bottom line.
      23,012 is 4.9% of total tests. How this helped the average will show up tomorrow.

  134. Medical docs and scientists from all over the world signatories to letter to NEJM pointing out the shadiness of the other shady paper that comes from the Surgisphere phantom database. It’s about to hit the fan. Two prestigious medical journals involved in some very shady shenanigans:

    https://zenodo.org/record/3873178#.XtZ1MjpKiUk

    • Calling it like they see it:

    • What’s holding up news on the University of Minnesota HCQ study? Is it too good? NEJM publishes study based on shady Surgisphere secret data, but are they deliberately sitting on the completed and submitted Univ. of Minn. study?:

      • Don Monfort

        Ah, the NEJM is concerned about the Surgisphere phantom database that they let slip through their lax scrutiny:

        https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2020822

        So where is the University of Minnesota paper?

      • You can fool all of the people some of the time.

        But this disaster is reason to be doubly careful with the Minnesota study.

      • Don Monfort

        What has this disaster got to do with the University of Minnesota study? I will help you: nothing. Suggesting otherwise is really foolish.

      • Don Monfort: What has this disaster got to do with the University of Minnesota study?

        Merely extra attention to what ought to be required in all submissions: making the de-identified data public, making all compute code used in the analyses public.

        I am sure, or almost sure, that the conduct of the MInnesota Study is untainted by the evident fraud perpetrated by Desai.

  135. Lancet belatedly shamed into action by NEJM issuing “Expression of concern”:

    They might make a movie of this bizarre fiasco. Surgisphere Director of Marketing. Probably good friend of Dr. Desai:

    • I shouldn’t have put that last thing here. Sorry, Judith. It just seemed to be fitting illustration of the lack of professionalism of NEJM and Lancet in falling for this blatant deception. How could they be so dumb? It’s obvious TDS with Horton editor of Lancet. So what’s up with the NEJM? Who, if anybody, reviewed these papers?

  136. Latest update on the Big Shady:

    Be on the lookout for University of Minnesota HCQ trial news coming out, let me guess, 6-3-20.

    My inquiry to company alleged by #LancetGate Dr. Desai to be auditing his company Surgisphere meets with stone wall. They either don’t know him, or don’t want to admit it.

    As previously reported, Dr. Desai’s co-authors are in cya mode and have hired independent auditor to pretend to investigate and announce what we already know.

    I am just guessing, but I think that lame and unprofessional NEJM, lame and unprofessional Lancet with its TDS editor, TDS mainstream media who jumped on the fake #LancetGate paper to discredit and ridicule POTUS Trump, the TDS China puppet W.H.O. who suspended their big HCQ trial based on fake research, tiny TDS Dr. Fauci who pronounced the end of HCQ based on fake research, are going to be scorched in the near future.

    Based on what I know, I have a funny feeling that someone is going to the Iron Bar Hotel.

    Stay tuned.

    • “Based on what I know, I have a funny feeling that someone is going to the Iron Bar Hotel.”

      Not unless we have a massive reversal of this charade and an end to coronagate. Most people haven’t gotten the news; they believe that HCQ has been roundly discredited, and a lot of people are working to keep it that way.

      Way to end this: let anyone isolate who wants to, let the rest of society do whatever they want to, and treat symptomatic cases with HCQ/etc.. That is NOT in the plan. The plan is for a surge in the fall (we’ve been warned, no?) extending into winter, chaos and possibly food shortages (but you DID stock up on toilet paper, right?), governments on their knees, and then perhaps our glorious new world order wherein we’ll all be tracked and traced through our vaccine-associated infrared-readable tattoos (our so-called “digital immunity passports.”) This digital information will of course not be linked to any other information about you. Everyone will indeed be “happy” unless they step out of line or else live in a country that has something rich countries want. With Biden in the White House, anything the Happy Brothers want will be complied with in a state of emergency, and for the good of everyone.
      https://unnwo.org/

      Are you ready to be happy???? I’m smiling already.

    • “Be on the lookout for University of Minnesota HCQ trial news coming out, let me guess, 6-3-20.”

      Maybe, maybe not. Foot dragging going on. Journals are rattled. TDS can sure cause people to do silly things.

      • Don Monfort

        This doesn’t look good. But I can’t find any news on the claimed NEJM publication: Weird: French translation of Montreal based site La Presse. Not sure the link will work:

        Hydroxychloroquine does not protect people exposed to SARS-CoV-2, the COVID-19 coronavirus. This is the conclusion of a new study in which Montreal researchers participated.

        “While we hoped that this drug would work in this context, our study shows that hydroxychloroquine is no better than placebo when used as post-exposure prophylaxis within four days of exposure to someone infected with the new coronavirus, “said Todd Lee of the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Center (RI-MUHC), which is one of the co-authors of the study published Wednesday in a statement. the New England Journal of Medicine .

        Hydroxychloroquine is a drug used against malaria and certain autoimmune diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis. It has been touted as a miracle drug against COVID-19 by a French researcher, Didier Raoult, but the placebo studies published so far have not confirmed this theory. Last week, a negative study published in The Lancet was methodologically attacked by many researchers, including skeptical researchers about the anti-COVID-19 properties of hydroxychloroquine.

        Montreal researchers worked with colleagues from Manitoba, Alberta and the University, from which the study of 821 asymptomatic adults who were exposed at home or in a care setting to an affected person was conducted COVID-19. The average age of the participants was 40 years. Half of them received a placebo. Just under 15% had the disease or its symptoms, and none died.

        https://www.lapresse.ca/covid-19/202006/03/01-5276159-une-nouvelle-tuile-pour-lhydroxychloroquine.php

      • Don Monfort

        Still can’t locate a confirming announcement for the Canadian report of NEMJ release of the University of Minnesota led PEP HCQ trial. Funny things going on.

        W.H.O. (Wuhan Health Organization) restarts HCQ arm of trials suspended because of negligent or worse Lancet published shady HCQ trial, that since has been thoroughly exposed as a comically inept fabrication:

      • Don Monfort

        NEJM report on University of Minnesota HCQ PEP trial will be released in next hour or so. Don’t think it’s going to be good. TDS virus cheerleaders will be all giddy. But I have heard of other trial results that will be good. I am not holding my breath. This is discouraging.

  137. again from StudyFinds: latest on plasma transfusion for COVID-19.
    https://www.studyfinds.org/blood-plasma-transfusions-for-covid-19-proven-safe-effective-76-of-patients-show-improvement/

    Not clear from this write-up whether RCT is actually planned, or being worked out.

  138. https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/06/01/this-ones-the-lancet-editorial-board-a-trolley-problem-for-our-times-involving-a-plate-of-delicious-cookies-and-a-steaming-pile-of-poop/#comment-1351927

    Enrolment on the HCQ arm in the Solidarity trial has resumed.

    https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19—03-june-2020

    “As you know, last week the Executive Group of the Solidarity Trial decided to implement a temporary pause of the hydroxychloroquine arm of the trial, because of concerns raised about the safety of the drug.

    “This decision was taken as a precaution while the safety data were reviewed.

    “The Data Safety and Monitoring Committee of the Solidarity Trial has been reviewing the data.

    “On the basis of the available mortality data, the members of the committee recommended that there are no reasons to modify the trial protocol.

    “The Executive Group received this recommendation and endorsed the continuation of all arms of the Solidarity Trial, including hydroxychloroquine.

    “The Executive Group will communicate with the principal investigators in the trial about resuming the hydroxychloroquine arm.

    “The Data Safety and Monitoring Committee will continue to closely monitor the safety of all therapeutics being tested in the Solidarity Trial.

    “So far, more than 3500 patients have been recruited in 35 countries.

    “WHO is committed to accelerating the development of effective therapeutics, vaccines and diagnostics as part of our commitment to serving the world with science, solutions and solidarity.”

  139. Modest Support for use of HCQ by health care workers:
    http://www.ijmr.org.in/preprintarticle.asp?id=285520;type=0

    Preprint of abstract. Whole paper seems to be behind paywall. Observational study, not an RCT.

    Here’s hoping.

  140. Prolly fake news and results with limited implications, but….well…Boulware apparently still holding out hope for profylaxis.

    –snip–

    On the heels of studies showing hydroxychloroquine doesn’t help patients in the hospital with Covid-19, a new study — the first of its kind — shows the drug doesn’t work to prevent infection with the virus, either.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/06/03/health/hydroxychloroquine-prevention-covid-19-study/index.html

    • And yeah, the author of the article was definitely confused.

    • OMG! Fake news CNN reported this. Only because it’s looks like good news for the virus and bad news to use to undermine and ridicule the POTUS. Joshie jumped right on it. Celebrate, celebrate dance to the music.

      • Don Monfort

        This is kinda bizarre:

        “In both groups, most of the patients did not receive a Covid-19 diagnostic test, since at the time of the study, such tests were in short supply. Instead, four physicians involved with the study reviewed the study subjects’ symptoms to see if they were compatible with a Covid diagnosis.”

        The trial protocol was:

        “Primary Outcome Measures :
        COVID-19-free survival [ Time Frame: up to 12 weeks ]
        Outcome reported as the percent of participants in each arm who are COVID-19-free at the end of study treatment.

        Secondary Outcome Measures :
        Incidence of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 detection [ Time Frame: up to 12 weeks ]
        Outcome reported as the percent of participants in each arm who have a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection during study treatment.”

        Where is the confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection? How tf can they do this without testing? They haven’t confirmed anything.

      • Still hope for profylaxis.

        But either way the question is didn’t the French studies show benefits with this kind of patient profile? So why the different outcomes? Maybe the lack of controls in the French studies were relevant to the French findings?

      • Don Monfort

        It’s more than bizarre. Most of the people who get infected are asymptomatic. But they are going by symptoms. Why bother?

      • Don Monfort

        The NEJM article is out. Useless. Everything was done remotely and about as haphazard as it could be. COVID 19 was confirmed by testing in less than 3% of the subjects. Useless. Subjects recruited sight-unseen through social media self-assumed there exposure to SUSPECTED disease. This is like a DIY clinical trial. Useless. What tf is wrong with the medical profession? Has this virus messed up their minds?

        https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2020388

        “This is described by the investigators as a “pragmatic” trial in which participants were recruited through social media and almost all data were reported by the participants. Adults who described a high-risk or moderate-risk exposure to someone with Covid-19 in their household or an occupational setting were provided hydroxychloroquine or placebo (by mail) within 4 days after the reported exposure, and before symptoms would be expected to develop. The authors enrolled 821 participants; an illness that was considered to be consistent with Covid-19 developed in 107 participants (13.0%) but was confirmed by polymerase-chain-reaction assay in less than 3% of the participants. The incidence of a new illness compatible with Covid-19 did not differ significantly between participants receiving hydroxychloroquine (49 of 414 [11.8%]) and those receiving placebo (58 of 407 [14.3%]). Although participant-reported side effects were significantly more common in those receiving hydroxychloroquine (40.1%) than in those receiving placebo (16.8%), no serious adverse reactions were reported.”

      • Don Monfort

        This trial was a DIY kinda thing. Subjects recruited through social media. Self-determined, if they were exposed to suspected COVID 19. Self-reported if they had symptoms of suspected COVID 19. Less than 3% of suspected cases of COVID 19 reported by subjects were confirmed by testing. Useless. What has the COVID 19 virus done to the medical profession? Have they all gone bonkers?

        https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2020388

        “This is described by the investigators as a “pragmatic” trial in which participants were recruited through social media and almost all data were reported by the participants. Adults who described a high-risk or moderate-risk exposure to someone with Covid-19 in their household or an occupational setting were provided hydroxychloroquine or placebo (by mail) within 4 days after the reported exposure, and before symptoms would be expected to develop. The authors enrolled 821 participants; an illness that was considered to be consistent with Covid-19 developed in 107 participants (13.0%) but was confirmed by polymerase-chain-reaction assay in less than 3% of the participants. The incidence of a new illness compatible with Covid-19 did not differ significantly between participants receiving hydroxychloroquine (49 of 414 [11.8%]) and those receiving placebo (58 of 407 [14.3%]). Although participant-reported side effects were significantly more common in those receiving hydroxychloroquine (40.1%) than in those receiving placebo (16.8%), no serious adverse reactions were reported.”

      • Don Monfort: This is described by the investigators as a “pragmatic” trial in which participants were recruited through social media and almost all data were reported by the participants.

        Possibly because proper trials take too long to produce results, and we need results now.

        I can’t see why it was published.

      • Don Monfort

        I spent some time looking at the University of Minnesota trial and it’s worse than I thought. Big holes, in addition to the issues pointed out in the editorial that accompanied the publication of the study:

        https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2020388

        They recruited 821 self-described asymptomatic subjects, who self-reported that within the previous four days they had been exposed to someone, who had tested positive for COVID 19. The researchers wanted recent exposures to get a shot at stopping the virus with HCQ, before it could progress. But they have no way of knowing if the subjects who signed up hadn’t had numerous contacts with infected persons prior to the reported incident and had themselves been infected for a week, or two.

        How do you adjust for that confounding factor? Assuming you have randomized similar numbers of subjects into both groups with older exposures and infections, the placebo could appear to work just as well as the HCQ. Two thirds of the subjects were health care providers and likely had multiple contacts with infected patients.

        The contact the health care workers had with infected individuals was stratified. High Risk Exposure for the HCQ group was 365 subjects, for the Placebo group 354. Not too great a difference, but those not having PPE protection during the exposure HCQ 258 vs. 237 for Placebo group, could skew the outcome significantly.

        In the HCQ treatment arm one-quarter did not complete the treatment. Among them were 6 of the 49 HCQ treated subjects who were deemed to be positive. I’d leave them out.

        In the final analysis, 11 of the 49 HCQ subjects deemed positive for the virus were confirmed by lab testing. The placebo group, 9 of 58. That’s 20 confimring lab tests for the whole study. Pathetic. Of the 107 positive cases in the study, 48 were classified by a single symptom as “probable” positives for the virus: Appendix Table S2 Cough (n=48) Pathetic.

        This trial is somewhat better than the #LancetGate and #NEJMgate fake trials, but certainly no better than the so-called anecdotal studies showing positive results for HCQ. The way it is being reported in the media is disinformation.

    • “On the heels of studies showing hydroxychloroquine doesn’t help patients in the hospital with Covid-19,”

      Fake news CNN forgot to mention that the fake trials published in the NEMJ and Lancet were faked.

      • My guess is that the people in the study who got sick prolly somehow all found out they were taking the real thing, and deliberately got sick just to make Trump look bad.

        Plus, they wanted to make sure that the pandemic keeps going so we can implant everyone with tracking devices when we get the vaccine.

        Can’t do that if HCQ works.

        Let’s check with Don132 to see if that’s what happened.

  141. DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    5/19/2020 23,764 5,133 27.5 477,701
    5/20/2020 18,882 -4,882 -20.5 357,771
    5/21/2020 24,816 5,234 31.4 1,501,704
    5/22/2020 27,559 2,743 11 429,222
    5/23/2020 25,349 -2,210 -8 472,287
    5/24/2020 19,173 -6,176 -24.3 368,126
    5/25/2020 19,608 435 2.2 419,573
    5/26/2020 20,088 480 2.4 377,548
    5/27/2020 20,648 560 2.7 357,949
    5/28/2020 19,421 -1,227 -5.9 460,934
    5/29/2020 22,452 3,031 15.5 345,392
    5/30/2020 27,263 4,811 21.4 491,402
    5/31/2020 17,770 -9,493 34.8 402,869
    6/1/2020 19,244 1,474 8.2 432,085
    6/2/2020 23,012 3,768 19.5 465,374
    6/3/2020 20,317 -2,695 -11.7 475,070
    20,317 is 4.2% of total tests.

  142. JAMA: Wuhan study of plasma transfusion from convalescents.
    https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2766943?guestAccessKey=cb48a9e4-60d5-4dd8-ba2d-3a4790b99737&utm_source=silverchair&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=article_alert-jama&utm_content=olf&utm_term=060320

    They had to terminate the study early because of the lack of new patients to enroll. Sample size was only half of what was planned. Random assignment, single blind (health assessment).

  143. Who set the boundaries of hard core music in the first place? One can push boundaries, but then they might as well just leave without making a big drama out of it. Your marketing is, kinda of this but not really. Now while you are an independent company, you’re just looking to get bought out by Facebook someday. You’re as corporate as the rest of the world is.

  144. It didn’t take long to fall apart:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/04/covid-19-lancet-retracts-paper-that-halted-hydroxychloroquine-trials

    “The journal’s editor, Richard Horton, said he was appalled by developments. “This is a shocking example of research misconduct in the middle of a global health emergency,” he told the Guardian.”

    It’s an even more shocking example of Lancet Editor Richard Horton’s incompetence, or is it his TDS. Shame non all of you. I hope they take shoestrings and sharp objects away from Dr. Desai. We want to hear his excuse.

  145. Meanwhile, the Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Working Group, composed of eight physicians, has dropped its recommendation for hydroxychloroquine and instead recommend a treatment based on methylprednisolone. They say that hydroxychloroquine may be useful in very early treatment but that the patients they see in the ER are beyond that point. https://covid19criticalcare.com/

  146. DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    5/26/2020 20,088 480 2.4 377,548
    5/27/2020 20,648 560 2.7 357,949
    5/28/2020 19,421 -1,227 -5.9 460,934
    5/29/2020 22,452 3,031 15.5 345,392
    5/30/2020 27,263 4,811 21.4 491,402
    5/31/2020 17,770 -9,493 34.8 402,869
    6/1/2020 19,244 1,474 8.2 432,085
    6/2/2020 23,012 3,768 19.5 465,374
    6/3/2020 20,317 -2,695 -11.7 475,070
    6/4/2020 21,854 1,537 7.5 480,964
    21,854 is 4.2% of total tests.
    We appear to be gradually loosing it although we are gradually increasing the tests. Thebreakout is gaining. We MUST increase number of tests!!!

  147. If Don Montfort’s 107th comment does not suggest a correlation of second-hand hydroxychloroquine and Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy, his 108th may.

    • I know more about it than the humiliated W.H.O (Wuhan Health Organization) and tiny little Doctora Fauci. Have you given up trying to drive traffic to your lame and lonely impostor blog? vvery childish, rustle

      clinicaltrials.gov HCQ trials:

      212 Studies found for: hydroxychloroquine | covid 19
      Also searched for SARS-CoV-2 and Plaquenil.

      A scientist involved in three trials says they are looking good for HCQ. Stay tuned, rustle. I think you are going to be very disappointed. Your pet virus is going to lose.

      • Don Monfort

        By the way rustle, what do you think Harvard U. is going to do about that clown, who helped perpetrate #lancetgate?

    • “what do you think Harvard U. is going to do about that clown, who helped perpetrate #lancetgate?”

      Students and professors here are alike aught that he right thing to do when they are wrong is to publiah a retraction.

      Justice might be further served by putting him on the Harvard Lampoon steps to amuse passersby by reciting the works of Down Under standup and serial Lamegate perp Rebecca Weisser, e.g:

      Lancet-gate 6 June 2020
      The much-touted report into hydroxychloroquine offers only comical relief

      China’s Frankenstein virus 30 May 2020
      Does this monster have French and American uncles?

      Dr Fauci’s diabolical deal 16 May 2020
      Politics infects the search for a coronavirus cure

      Pandamaniacs unleash pandamonium 25 April 2020
      Pandemic escapes from Pandora’s box

      WHO dunnit? WHO knows 11 April 2020
      Sars, lies and the CCP

      Getafix battles Pharma Geddon and comes up Trumps 4 April 2020
      A quick cheap cure for the coronavirus could be a bitter pill for the Democrats

      Getafix’s Covid potion 28 March 2020
      Trump haters who sneer at a potential cure don’t have to take it

  148. reposted:

    Good summary of status in US as of yesterday. Nice interactive graph shows effectiveness of the lockdown orders.

    https://thomasglassphd.com/category/daily-briefings/

    • A while back we were treading water at 30,000 a day. (30,000 X 14 = 420.000) Now we are treading water at 20,000 a day. (20,000 X 14 = 280,000) You have asked 140,000 to self isolate. The more of the 280,000 we can get to self isolate the lower the percentage of positive to total.
      That chart just shows we have to do better.

    • Nice discussion under #3 in his response.

  149. DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    5/26/2020 20,088 480 2.4 377,548
    5/27/2020 20,648 560 2.7 357,949
    5/28/2020 19,421 -1,227 -5.9 460,934
    5/29/2020 22,452 3,031 15.5 345,392
    5/30/2020 27,263 4,811 21.4 491,402
    5/31/2020 17,770 -9,493 34.8 402,869
    6/1/2020 19,244 1,474 8.2 432,085
    6/2/2020 23,012 3,768 19.5 465,374
    6/3/2020 20,317 -2,695 -11.7 475,070
    6/4/2020 21,854 1,537 7.5 480,964
    6/5/2020 29,179 7,325 33.5 611,326
    29,179 is 4.7% of total tests. Yesterday was 4.5%
    Very good increase in total tests.
    Do not know the reason for increasse in %. Could be increase in symptomatic because of social unrest, increas in relaxing of social distancing, more tests in hot spots.
    Increase # of tests again tomorrow and we will see where we stand.

  150. Report of Recovery trial review release of prelimary results:

    https://www.recoverytrial.net/news/statement-from-the-chief-investigators-of-the-randomised-evaluation-of-covid-19-therapy-recovery-trial-on-hydroxychloroquine-5-june-2020-no-clinical-benefit-from-use-of-hydroxychloroquine-in-hospitalised-patients-with-covid-19

    ‘The trial has proceeded at unprecedented speed, enrolling over 11,000 patients from 175 NHS hospitals in the UK. Throughout this time, the independent Data Monitoring Committee has reviewed the emerging data about every two weeks to determine if there is evidence that would be strong enough to affect national and global treatment of COVID-19.

    “On Thursday 4 June, in response to a request from the UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), the independent Data Monitoring Committee conducted a further review of the data. Last night, the Committee recommended the chief investigators review the unblinded data on the hydroxychloroquine arm of the trial.

    ‘We have concluded that there is no beneficial effect of hydroxychloroquine in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. We have therefore decided to stop enrolling participants to the hydroxychloroquine arm of the RECOVERY Trial with immediate effect. We are now releasing the preliminary results as they have important implications for patient care and public health.

    ‘A total of 1542 patients were randomised to hydroxychloroquine and compared with 3132 patients randomised to usual care alone. There was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of 28-day mortality (25.7% hydroxychloroquine vs. 23.5% usual care; hazard ratio 1.11 [95% confidence interval 0.98-1.26]; p=0.10). There was also no evidence of beneficial effects on hospital stay duration or other outcomes.

    ‘These data convincingly rule out any meaningful mortality benefit of hydroxychloroquine in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Full results will be made available as soon as possible.”

    Not much time now, took a quick look at protocol. Started with enrollment of hospital patients “clinically suspected, or laboratory confirmed”. Randomly assigned to treatment groups, open label. We will see how they “clinically suspected” and what other aspects might be sketchy. Anyway, it’s a big trial and needs to be considered seriously as possibly conclusive. I suspect the virus cheerleaders will not wait for a proper analysis to get their celebration started.

    • Bad news.

      The old-people-dying-in-New-York-nursing-home-cheerleaders will have a hard time with this one .

      • Don Monfort

        Lame attempt, joshie. Every body knows the TDS left loons want the death toll and the economic devastation to be catastrophic, because Orange Man bad. You will only have to suffer under his rule for another four years and seven months. Then it’s going to be the first tall gorgeous blonde female Jewish POTUS, Ivanka Kushner.

  151. “There was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of 28-day mortality (25.7% hydroxychloroquine vs. 23.5% usual care; hazard ratio 1.11 [95% confidence interval 0.98-1.26]; p=0.10).”

    In my haste, I missed the numbers. OUCH! Not a good recommendation for care at ye olde NHS. A quarter of hospitalized patients bit the dust? Wow!

  152. DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    5/26/2020 20,088 480 2.4 377,548
    5/27/2020 20,648 560 2.7 357,949
    5/28/2020 19,421 -1,227 -5.9 460,934
    5/29/2020 22,452 3,031 15.5 345,392
    5/30/2020 27,263 4,811 21.4 491,402
    5/31/2020 17,770 -9,493 34.8 402,869
    6/1/2020 19,244 1,474 8.2 432,085
    6/2/2020 23,012 3,768 19.5 465,374
    6/3/2020 20,317 -2,695 -11.7 475,070
    6/4/2020 21,854 1,537 7.5 480,964
    6/5/2020 29,179 7,325 33.5 611,326
    6/6/2020 22,754 -6,425 -22 579,138
    22,754 is 3.9% of total tests.
    The asymptomatic are getting fewer and fewer, thus harder to find.You are going to have to increase the number of tests substancially to keep ahead of them.

  153. DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    5/26/2020 20,088 480 2.4 377,548
    5/27/2020 20,648 560 2.7 357,949
    5/28/2020 19,421 -1,227 -5.9 460,934
    5/29/2020 22,452 3,031 15.5 345,392
    5/30/2020 27,263 4,811 21.4 491,402
    5/31/2020 17,770 -9,493 34.8 402,869
    6/1/2020 19,244 1,474 8.2 432,085
    6/2/2020 23,012 3,768 19.5 465,374
    6/3/2020 20,317 -2,695 -11.7 475,070
    6/4/2020 21,854 1,537 7.5 480,964
    6/5/2020 29,179 7,325 33.5 611,326
    6/6/2020 22,754 -6,425 -22 579,138
    6/7/2020 10,628 -12,126 -53 434,065
    10,628 is 2.4% of total tests.
    Friday my computer crashed so to get yesterday’s reading I switched to midnight GMT from noon GMT.
    This looks to good. Will see tomorrow.

    • Your computer must have gotten tired of seeing that jumble of numbers every day and decided to give you a message. You may want to pay attention. Remember HAL?

    • Is it posable part of the increase in tests is asymptomatic protesters wearing masks. The extra activity of the body caused the individual to become symptomatic.

    • I am unsure what the numbers mean? How about you plot them? Marketing. It’s not just for Pepsi.

  154. DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    5/26/2020 20,088 480 2.4 377,548
    5/27/2020 20,648 560 2.7 357,949
    5/28/2020 19,421 -1,227 -5.9 460,934
    5/29/2020 22,452 3,031 15.5 345,392
    5/30/2020 27,263 4,811 21.4 491,402
    5/31/2020 17,770 -9,493 34.8 402,869
    6/1/2020 19,244 1,474 8.2 432,085
    6/2/2020 23,012 3,768 19.5 465,374
    6/3/2020 20,317 -2,695 -11.7 475,070
    6/4/2020 21,854 1,537 7.5 480,964
    6/5/2020 29,179 7,325 33.5 611,326
    6/6/2020 22,754 -6,425 -22 579,138
    6/7/2020 10,628 -12,126 -53 434,065
    6/8/2020 18,656 8,028 75 505,061
    18,656 1s 3.7% of total tests.
    3.7% is the only number that matters. To me, it means there are 280,000 infected individuals walking around the USA infecting others.

    • Asymptematic is what is spreading the virus .Every time we got the testing increased we brought the spread down We now remove about 20,000 a day with 500,000 tests daily. We need 1,000,000 tests daily to get to where need to be.
      TEST, TEST, TEST!!!

    • I believe WHO (Chinese) have shut us (me) down

  155. DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    5/26/2020 20,088 480 2.4 377,548
    5/27/2020 20,648 560 2.7 357,949
    5/28/2020 19,421 -1,227 -5.9 460,934
    5/29/2020 22,452 3,031 15.5 345,392
    5/30/2020 27,263 4,811 21.4 491,402
    5/31/2020 17,770 -9,493 34.8 402,869
    6/1/2020 19,244 1,474 8.2 432,085
    6/2/2020 23,012 3,768 19.5 465,374
    6/3/2020 20,317 -2,695 -11.7 475,070
    6/4/2020 21,854 1,537 7.5 480,964
    6/5/2020 29,179 7,325 33.5 611,326
    6/6/2020 22,754 -6,425 -22 579,138
    6/7/2020 10,628 -12,126 -53 434,065
    6/8/2020 18,656 8,028 75 505,061
    6/9/2020 18,924 268 1.5 410,816
    6/10/2020 19,925 1,001 5.2 455,746
    6/11/2020 22,804 2,879 14.4 446,134
    22,804 is 5.1% of total tests. That is 18.6% higher than on the 10th.
    We need a lot more tests if we want to get it back down to the 4.3 on the 10th. The low was 3.7% on the 8th.

  156. DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    6/1/2020 19,244 1,474 8.2 432,085
    6/2/2020 23,012 3,768 19.5 465,374
    6/3/2020 20,317 -2,695 -11.7 475,070
    6/4/2020 21,854 1,537 7.5 480,964
    6/5/2020 29,179 7,325 33.5 611,326
    6/6/2020 22,754 -6,425 -22 579,138
    6/7/2020 10,628 -12,126 -53 434,065
    6/8/2020 18,656 8,028 75 505,061
    6/9/2020 18,924 268 1.5 410,816
    6/10/2020 19,925 1,001 5.2 455,746
    6/11/2020 22,804 2,879 14.4 446,134
    6/12/2020 26,510 3,706 16.2 635,249
    26,510 is 4.1% of total tests. 635,239 looking a lot better.
    800,000 or higher would look better tomorrow. They are getting harder to find.

  157. 26,510 positive tests would be 2.36% of 1,000,000 tests. If we could get there, maybe nature and social distencing would take care of the rest.

  158. DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    6/1/2020 19,244 1,474 8.2 432,085
    6/2/2020 23,012 3,768 19.5 465,374
    6/3/2020 20,317 -2,695 -11.7 475,070
    6/4/2020 21,854 1,537 7.5 480,964
    6/5/2020 29,179 7,325 33.5 611,326
    6/6/2020 22,754 -6,425 -22 579,138
    6/7/2020 10,628 -12,126 -53 434,065
    6/8/2020 18,656 8,028 75 505,061
    6/9/2020 18,924 268 1.5 410,816
    6/10/2020 19,925 1,001 5.2 455,746
    6/11/2020 22,804 2,879 14.4 446,134
    6/12/2020 26,510 3,706 16.2 635,249
    6/13/2020 24,865 -1,645 -6.2 636,571
    24,865 is 3.9% of total tests.
    Over 100,000 more tests each of the last 2 days and treading water. I do not understand that. It looks like we need a Million a day to stay ahead.
    We will see tomorrow.

  159. DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    6/1/2020 19,244 1,474 8.2 432,085
    6/2/2020 23,012 3,768 19.5 465,374
    6/3/2020 20,317 -2,695 -11.7 475,070
    6/4/2020 21,854 1,537 7.5 480,964
    6/5/2020 29,179 7,325 33.5 611,326
    6/6/2020 22,754 -6,425 -22 579,138
    6/7/2020 10,628 -12,126 -53 434,065
    6/8/2020 18,656 8,028 75 505,061
    6/9/2020 18,924 268 1.5 410,816
    6/10/2020 19,925 1,001 5.2 455,746
    6/11/2020 22,804 2,879 14.4 446,134
    6/12/2020 26,510 3,706 16.2 635,249
    6/13/2020 24,865 -1,645 -6.2 636,571
    6/14/2020 19,374 -5,491 -22 516,722
    19,374 is 3.7% of total tests. % still going down.
    More tests it would go down faster.

  160. Go up to the chart with 5/27/2020 on the bottom.. Now look at 5/21/2020. You did 1,501,704 tests. 2 days below see what happened.
    It takes 2 days after infection before the present test can pick it up. It looks like today is going to show the 600,000 of two days ago.

  161. DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    6/1/2020 19,244 1,474 8.2 432,085
    6/2/2020 23,012 3,768 19.5 465,374
    6/3/2020 20,317 -2,695 -11.7 475,070
    6/4/2020 21,854 1,537 7.5 480,964
    6/5/2020 29,179 7,325 33.5 611,326
    6/6/2020 22,754 -6,425 -22 579,138
    6/7/2020 10,628 -12,126 -53 434,065
    6/8/2020 18,656 8,028 75 505,061
    6/9/2020 18,924 268 1.5 410,816
    6/10/2020 19,925 1,001 5.2 455,746
    6/11/2020 22,804 2,879 14.4 446,134
    6/12/2020 26,510 3,706 16.2 635,249
    6/13/2020 24,865 -1,645 -6.2 636,571
    6/14/2020 19,374 -5,491 -22 516,722
    6/15/2020 20,605 1,231 6.3 966,919
    20,605 is 2.2% of total tests.
    I enjoy listening to the news and how no one but you understand what you are doing.
    I have been sending a copy of this to the President daily. Even they do not nunderstand what you have done.
    I should be embarrased fOr below, but I am not.
    MORE TESTS MORE TESTS MORE TESTS

    • I must apologize. I did not register in my brain how many tests you did today. All I saw was 2.2%. The other numbers did not register.
      You diserve my 4 letter word. WOWW!!!

      • Robert Clark

        I added 14th and 15th together total tests and put it in 15th. 15th total tests is 450,197. 20,605 is 4.5% of total tests.I blame it on sinility.

      • Robert Clark: I added 14th and 15th together total tests and put it in 15th. 15th total tests is 450,197. 20,605 is 4.5% of total tests

        After some rereadings, I think I understand.

  162. DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    6/1/2020 19,244 1,474 8.2 432,085
    6/2/2020 23,012 3,768 19.5 465,374
    6/3/2020 20,317 -2,695 -11.7 475,070
    6/4/2020 21,854 1,537 7.5 480,964
    6/5/2020 29,179 7,325 33.5 611,326
    6/6/2020 22,754 -6,425 -22 579,138
    6/7/2020 10,628 -12,126 -53 434,065
    6/8/2020 18,656 8,028 75 505,061
    6/9/2020 18,924 268 1.5 410,816
    6/10/2020 19,925 1,001 5.2 455,746
    6/11/2020 22,804 2,879 14.4 446,134
    6/12/2020 26,510 3,706 16.2 635,249
    6/13/2020 24,865 -1,645 -6.2 636,571
    6/14/2020 19,374 -5,491 -22 516,722
    6/15/2020 20,605 1,231 6.3 450,197
    6/16/2020 24,119 3,524 17 459,765
    24,119 is 5.2% of total tests.
    Looks like we are again treading water.
    Will see how it looks tomorrow.

  163. I am listening to Biden’s talk about the virus and how this virus being out of control is all the President’s fault. That is not true. It is our fault. Back about a month you did 1.5 million tests. It shows we can control this until science finds the solution. One thing I missed is that from the time the individual is infected, that individual is transmitting the virus for about 3 days before the test can detect it.

    We know how to bring the percentage down. TEST, TEST, TEST, TEST!!!!

  164. DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    6/10/2020 19,925 1,001 5.2 455,746
    6/11/2020 22,804 2,879 14.4 446,134
    6/12/2020 26,510 3,706 16.2 635,249
    6/13/2020 24,865 -1,645 -6.2 636,571
    6/14/2020 19,374 -5,491 -22 516,722
    6/15/2020 20,605 1,231 6.3 450,197
    6/16/2020 24,119 3,524 17 459,765
    6/17/2020 25,082 963 3.9 510,345
    25,082 is 4.9% of total tests.
    I will look forward to tomorrow.

  165. DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    6/10/2020 19,925 1,001 5.2 455,746
    6/11/2020 22,804 2,879 14.4 446,134
    6/12/2020 26,510 3,706 16.2 635,249
    6/13/2020 24,865 -1,645 -6.2 636,571
    6/14/2020 19,374 -5,491 -22 516,722
    6/15/2020 20,605 1,231 6.3 450,197
    6/16/2020 24,119 3,524 17 459,765
    6/17/2020 25,082 963 3.9 510,345
    6/18/2020 26,723 1,641 6.5 511,777
    26,723 is 5.1% of total tests. Treading water again.
    If you could get 560,000 total tests tomorrow, you would be 4.6% of total tests with 26,000 poitive.

  166. The chart that resets at 7:00 AM CDT just reset and is acting up.
    Total positive 31,122, Total tests 26,780,619, Past 24 HR. 387,721
    The total tests at 7:00 AM CDT yesterday was 26,401,898. At 7:00 PM CDT yesterday was 26,723,015.
    I believe this rally is the President’s way of speaking to us, (THE AMERICAN PEOPLE).
    The scientists have given us a quickie test.
    The States have set up testing stations capable of doing 1.5 million tests a day.
    We have demonstrated we can kill this virus any time we wish.
    It is time to open up the country. The people are restless.
    Schools must open on time with normal activities.
    Start now and clean out the virus.
    You do this and the rest of the world will clean up also.

    Mr. President WOWW is a 4 letter word. Thank you for your help

  167. DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    6/10/2020 19,925 1,001 5.2 455,746
    6/11/2020 22,804 2,879 14.4 446,134
    6/12/2020 26,510 3,706 16.2 635,249
    6/13/2020 24,865 -1,645 -6.2 636,571
    6/14/2020 19,374 -5,491 -22 516,722
    6/15/2020 20,605 1,231 6.3 450,197
    6/16/2020 24,119 3,524 17 459,765
    6/17/2020 25,082 963 3.9 510,345
    6/18/2020 26,723 1,641 6.5 511,777
    6/19/2020 31,982 5,259 16.6 548,834
    31,982 is 5.8% of total tests.
    I do not know why this dumb pile of numbers works, but it does. Is it possible the Corona Virus task force has set us up? The President used the term “the percent is very low” today. I said the 5.8% is the only number that counts.
    HOW DO WE GET THE NUMBER OF TESTS TO INCREASE RAPIDLY?

  168. DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    6/10/2020 19,925 1,001 5.2 455,746
    6/11/2020 22,804 2,879 14.4 446,134
    6/12/2020 26,510 3,706 16.2 635,249
    6/13/2020 24,865 -1,645 -6.2 636,571
    6/14/2020 19,374 -5,491 -22 516,722
    6/15/2020 20,605 1,231 6.3 450,197
    6/16/2020 24,119 3,524 17 459,765
    6/17/2020 25,082 963 3.9 510,345
    6/18/2020 26,723 1,641 6.5 511,777
    6/19/2020 31,982 5,259 16.6 548,834
    6/20/2020 32,627 645 2 703,014
    32,627 is 4.6% of total tests. 5.8% yesterday.
    1.2 is a 20% drop. Very good.
    Only 300,000 more tests tomorrow will really look good.

  169. DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    6/10/2020 19,925 1,001 5.2 455,746
    6/11/2020 22,804 2,879 14.4 446,134
    6/12/2020 26,510 3,706 16.2 635,249
    6/13/2020 24,865 -1,645 -6.2 636,571
    6/14/2020 19,374 -5,491 -22 516,722
    6/15/2020 20,605 1,231 6.3 450,197
    6/16/2020 24,119 3,524 17 459,765
    6/17/2020 25,082 963 3.9 510,345
    6/18/2020 26,723 1,641 6.5 511,777
    6/19/2020 31,982 5,259 16.6 548,834
    6/20/2020 32,627 645 2 703,014
    6/21/2020 25,221 -7,406 -22 490,534
    25,221 is 5.1% of total tests.
    Tuesday will be 3 days after the 700,00 of friday. Hopefully there will be a noticable drop in positive percentage. Number of tests very disapointing today.

  170. I have asked the President for his assistance in explaining the increase in positive is a good thing. I have askred that Ms. Mcerney have a press briefing and have Dr’s Fauci, Birch and Carson explaine why the increase in positive tests is a good sign.

  171. DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    6/10/2020 19,925 1,001 5.2 455,746
    6/11/2020 22,804 2,879 14.4 446,134
    6/12/2020 26,510 3,706 16.2 635,249
    6/13/2020 24,865 -1,645 -6.2 636,571
    6/14/2020 19,374 -5,491 -22 516,722
    6/15/2020 20,605 1,231 6.3 450,197
    6/16/2020 24,119 3,524 17 459,765
    6/17/2020 25,082 963 3.9 510,345
    6/18/2020 26,723 1,641 6.5 511,777
    6/19/2020 31,982 5,259 16.6 548,834
    6/20/2020 32,627 645 2 703,014
    6/21/2020 25,221 -7,406 -22 490,534
    6/22/2020 31,188 5967 23.6 506,603
    31,188 is 6.1% of total tests.
    Yesterday was 5.1%. That means the virus infected more individuals in the last 24 hours than we removed yesterday. Not good

  172. DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    6/10/2020 19,925 1,001 5.2 455,746
    6/11/2020 22,804 2,879 14.4 446,134
    6/12/2020 26,510 3,706 16.2 635,249
    6/13/2020 24,865 -1,645 -6.2 636,571
    6/14/2020 19,374 -5,491 -22 516,722
    6/15/2020 20,605 1,231 6.3 450,197
    6/16/2020 24,119 3,524 17 459,765
    6/17/2020 25,082 963 3.9 510,345
    6/18/2020 26,723 1,641 6.5 511,777
    6/19/2020 31,982 5,259 16.6 548,834
    6/20/2020 32,627 645 2 703,014
    6/21/2020 25,221 -7,406 -22 490,534
    6/22/2020 31,188 5967 23.6 506,603
    6/23/2020 35,383 4,195 13.4 578,640
    35,383 is 6.1% of total tests. Yesterday was 6.1%. Treading water.
    Tomorrow is 3 days after 703,014 tests. We wil see if I am correct about 3 days of infection befor test can detect it.

  173. DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    6/10/2020 19,925 1,001 5.2 455,746
    6/11/2020 22,804 2,879 14.4 446,134
    6/12/2020 26,510 3,706 16.2 635,249
    6/13/2020 24,865 -1,645 -6.2 636,571
    6/14/2020 19,374 -5,491 -22 516,722
    6/15/2020 20,605 1,231 6.3 450,197
    6/16/2020 24,119 3,524 17 459,765
    6/17/2020 25,082 963 3.9 510,345
    6/18/2020 26,723 1,641 6.5 511,777
    6/19/2020 31,982 5,259 16.6 548,834
    6/20/2020 32,627 645 2 703,014
    6/21/2020 25,221 -7,406 -22 490,534
    6/22/2020 31,188 5967 23.6 506,603
    6/23/2020 35,383 4,195 13.4 578,640
    35,383 is 6.1%of total tests.
    Tomorrow is 3 days after 703,014 tests. We will see if it takes 3 days infected before the test can detect it.

    • Robert –

      What do you think about our president’s determination that we’d be better off with less testing?

      • Robert Clark

        I believe he is incorrect

      • Robert Clark

        I believe many of the positive tests now are synptomatic cases checking to see if they can return to normal life because they have beaten the virus.

  174. DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    6/10/2020 19,925 1,001 5.2 455,746
    6/11/2020 22,804 2,879 14.4 446,134
    6/12/2020 26,510 3,706 16.2 635,249
    6/13/2020 24,865 -1,645 -6.2 636,571
    6/14/2020 19,374 -5,491 -22 516,722
    6/15/2020 20,605 1,231 6.3 450,197
    6/16/2020 24,119 3,524 17 459,765
    6/17/2020 25,082 963 3.9 510,345
    6/18/2020 26,723 1,641 6.5 511,777
    6/19/2020 31,982 5,259 16.6 548,834
    6/20/2020 32,627 645 2 703,014
    6/21/2020 25,221 -7,406 -22 490,534
    6/22/2020 31,188 5967 23.6 506,603
    6/23/2020 35,383 4,195 13.4 578,640
    6/24/2020 38,539 3,156 8.9 445,072
    38,539 is 8.6% 07 t0tal tests.I guess I am wrong that it takes 3 days for an infected individual test to show the infection.
    As you can see the percentage is rising. To me this means the virus is making more infected individuals than we are asking to self isolate. There is only one way to reverse this.
    WE HAVE TO GET UP TO CLOSE TO A MILLION TESTS A DAY. WE HAVE TO SELF ISOLATE AS MANY AS WE CAN HUMANLY DO. THESE ARE NOT NEW CASES. THESE ARE CASES THAT HAVE BEEN WAKKING AROUND FOR 1 TO 14 DAYS

  175. I just finished calculating the GMT+7 chart (7:00 AM CDT). It looks like I was off by 24 hours. Tonight I will begin asking the AMERICAN PEOPLE for as close as you can get to 1 million tests daily for 5 days. The extra day is just to make me look better.

  176. DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    6/16/2020 24,119 3,524 17 459,765
    6/17/2020 25,082 963 3.9 510,345
    6/18/2020 26,723 1,641 6.5 511,777
    6/19/2020 31,982 5,259 16.6 548,834
    6/20/2020 32,627 645 2 703,014
    6/21/2020 25,221 -7,406 -22 490,534
    6/22/2020 31,188 5967 23.6 506,603
    6/23/2020 35,383 4,195 13.4 578,640
    6/24/2020 38,539 3,156 8.9 445,072
    6/25/2020 36,586 -1,956 5 663,776
    36,586 is 5.5% of total tests. Yesterday was 8.6% of total tests.You messed up my thinking because I was thinking we would have the similar tests and % as yesterday. You did 218,704 tests more than yesterday.
    This will show up in the % 4 days from now. Imagine if you did aruund 1 million tests each day for the rest of the week.

  177. Update for 12:00 GMT (7:00 AM CDT)
    Total Positive, 36,940
    Total tests 829,219
    % of total pos. 4,45
    Not bad. We will see at 7:00 PM CDT if you made a little more tests.
    THE 30TH IS THE FIRST DAY THAT WILL SHOW THE BEGINNING OF YOUR CONQUERING THE VIRUS.

  178. DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    6/16/2020 24,119 3,524 17 459,765
    6/17/2020 25,082 963 3.9 510,345
    6/18/2020 26,723 1,641 6.5 511,777
    6/19/2020 31,982 5,259 16.6 548,834
    6/20/2020 32,627 645 2 703,014
    6/21/2020 25,221 -7,406 -22 490,534
    6/22/2020 31,188 5967 23.6 506,603
    6/23/2020 35,383 4,195 13.4 578,640
    6/24/2020 38,539 3,156 8.9 445,072
    6/25/2020 36,586 -1,956 5 663,776
    6/26/2020 46,731 2,573 7 620,535
    46,731 is 7.5% of total tests.
    If you can keep it at 600,000 tests daily or higher until after 6/30/2020 you will see the fruits of your work and the beginning of the death of the virus.
    They say they will have a vaccine.

  179. samir sardana

    The Future for the Indians ! dindooohindoo

    By July 2020 – the daily death toll in India – will be the highest in the world

    By September 2020 – Indians who are cured today,will be re-infected

    By September 2020 – India will rank at No.3 in Total cases

    By June 2021 – India will rank at No.1 in Number of cases

    By July 1st week 2020 – India will have the highest number of daily cases

    By October 2020 – the food supply chain will break down,and there will be food riots

    In November and December 2020 there will be a false flag operation,and the start of a war which will bury India – forever.

    If the cases in IRP – Islamic Republic of Pakistan – are not under control,by August 2020 – the cataclysm for India,could occur sooner.

    It is a classic case study,of doom

    But the Indians,still have NO CLUE.There is no Cure.The Indian Fools do not get it.The Doctors are just suppressing the symptoms (or trying to – on guesstimates),in the hope that the immune system,will recover (as COVID hits the immune system – aka HIV link).Hence,the virus might still exist – and migrate to te lower tracts,or JUST RE-ENTER LATER – as there is no CURE AND NO VACCINE – to PREVENT A REINFECTION (unlike smallpox,chickenpox etc.)

    There is NO HOPE of a vaccine and EVEN IF IT COMES – the immunity potion and methodology, WILL NOT LAST – for sure.There has never been a Vaccine for a respiratory INFECTION or for an infection – which destroys immunity (aka-HIV).And so,there will EITHER be no COVID vaccine,or it will fail.

    Indians are a reservoir of diseases – a race of weasels and supines – as a consequence,of those viruses – which were not fatal.This is what led to their mental and physical slavery,for 2500 years.

    This virus is for their TERMINAL TERMINATION. I look at the wonders of nature.For 2500 years,the viruses destroyed the DNA and potency of Indians,South Asians and East Asians – and led to their slavery,to races from Colder regions,of the world – and now,this virus will terminate the South and South East Asians (by disease,hunger,civil war and anarchy).

    Cold temperatures are ideal for the Human DNA,Human Brain and Human Sexual and Physical Health.In history,the races from the Colder regions have ruled the world – always – w/o exception. Even within nations,you can easily sense the difference – say,between North and South Chima,North East Asia (DPRK/Nippon/Korea/ Taiwan) and South East Asia.Even on matters of intellectus and theosophy or or spiritualism – North East Asia adopted Mahayana Buddhism (and see where they are) and South East Asia and South Asia,adopted Hinayana Buddhism and Hinduism (and they are in a rut)

    Look at the Islam of the Indonesians ! Is that Islam ? It is bogus ! Same for the Christians of East and South Asia !

    In essence,Indians and South/East Asians,are a race with poor DNA/genes – and a burden on the earth,and its resources (besides Thai hookers and Thai cooks).They were slaves in the past 2500 years, and will now,always be pawns – manipulated by the USA,PRC,Russia etc.The time has come to end the misery,of the Indian destitutes – mangled by the Indian State and the Indian Elite.

    Take the example of North and South America.However, South America is still a paradise compared to South East Asia.It is all about being,on the right side of the Equator.

    Indians are ALREADY treating the DEAD BODIES,as worse than Garbage !

    https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/coronavirus-body-of-up-man-who-died-on-road-taken-in-garbage-van-over-virus-fears-2244553?pfrom=home-topstories

    In 20 days from today,the health infrastructure,in India,will collapse,and people will be dying,on the roads.

    People will refuse to bury the dead – and will drag, decomposed dead bodies,:on the streets

    https://www.theweek.in/news/india/2020/06/12/video-of-decomposed-bodies-being-dragged-in-kolkata-triggers-horror.html

    This ain’t “Nature at work” – because the virus is a “Thinker”. It kills NOT by disease ALONE.It combines with it chaos, riots,anarchy,civil war,hunger,starvation,economic disaster …. And it does not end there.Each of these,leads to more “incidental viruses and plagues”- due to a breakdown of
    the government machinery,sanitation,sewage,industrial wastes and the health infrastructure. Dovetailed with that,is the virus attacks on agriculture as the implements, complements and supplements in the agri-supply chain will disappear,and the crop infections – will increase in a geometric progression.

    A Great White Shark,with White skin and pink lips, who smoked a cigar uttered the following gospel – as his revelation,to the world – which the world seems to have ignored,or pretends to ignore :

    Allow me to present H.E.His Holiness,His Magnificience,His Opulent OmniPotence – Mr Winston Churchill

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/not-his-finest-hour-the-dark-side-of-winston-churchill-2118317.html

    “I hate Indians”.

    “They are a beastly people with a beastly religion,” he had said.

  180. DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    6/16/2020 24,119 3,524 17 459,765
    6/17/2020 25,082 963 3.9 510,345
    6/18/2020 26,723 1,641 6.5 511,777
    6/19/2020 31,982 5,259 16.6 548,834
    6/20/2020 32,627 645 2 703,014
    6/21/2020 25,221 -7,406 -22 490,534
    6/22/2020 31,188 5967 23.6 506,603
    6/23/2020 35,383 4,195 13.4 578,640
    6/24/2020 38,539 3,156 8.9 445,072
    6/25/2020 36,586 -1,956 5 663,776
    6/26/2020 46,731 2,573 7 620,535
    6/27/2020 42,613 -4,118 -8.8 710,715
    42,613 is 5.99% of total tests. 710,755 total tests. That is amazing.
    Sunday is followed by Monday and then comes TUESDAY.

  181. DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    6/16/2020 24,119 3,524 17 459,765
    6/17/2020 25,082 963 3.9 510,345
    6/18/2020 26,723 1,641 6.5 511,777
    6/19/2020 31,982 5,259 16.6 548,834
    6/20/2020 32,627 645 2 703,014
    6/21/2020 25,221 -7,406 -22 490,534
    6/22/2020 31,188 5967 23.6 506,603
    6/23/2020 35,383 4,195 13.4 578,640
    6/24/2020 38,539 3,156 8.9 445,072
    6/25/2020 36,586 -1,956 5 663,776
    6/26/2020 46,731 2,573 7 620,535
    6/27/2020 42,613 -4,118 -8.8 710,715
    6/28/2020 32,515 -10,098 -23 524,174
    32,515 is 7.4% of total tests.
    We are going to have to keep the tests around 600,000 until they figure out a good sampling system or a vaccine.
    All is going well.

  182. DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    6/16/2020 24,119 3,524 17 459,765
    6/17/2020 25,082 963 3.9 510,345
    6/18/2020 26,723 1,641 6.5 511,777
    6/19/2020 31,982 5,259 16.6 548,834
    6/20/2020 32,627 645 2 703,014
    6/21/2020 25,221 -7,406 -22 490,534
    6/22/2020 31,188 5967 23.6 506,603
    6/23/2020 35,383 4,195 13.4 578,640
    6/24/2020 38,539 3,156 8.9 445,072
    6/25/2020 36,586 -1,956 5 663,776
    6/26/2020 46,731 2,573 7 620,535
    6/27/2020 42,613 -4,118 -8.8 710,715
    6/28/2020 32,515 -10,098 -23 524,174
    6/29/2020 43,737 11,222 34.5 597,037
    43,737 is 7.3% of tests.
    Tomorrow is the day.

  183. DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    6/16/2020 24,119 3,524 17 459,765
    6/17/2020 25,082 963 3.9 510,345
    6/18/2020 26,723 1,641 6.5 511,777
    6/19/2020 31,982 5,259 16.6 548,834
    6/20/2020 32,627 645 2 703,014
    6/21/2020 25,221 -7,406 -22 490,534
    6/22/2020 31,188 5967 23.6 506,603
    6/23/2020 35,383 4,195 13.4 578,640
    6/24/2020 38,539 3,156 8.9 445,072
    6/25/2020 36,586 -1,956 5 663,776
    6/26/2020 46,731 2,573 7 620,535
    6/27/2020 42,613 -4,118 -8.8 710,715
    6/28/2020 32,515 -10,098 -23 524,174
    6/29/2020 43,737 11,222 34.5 597,037
    6/30/2020 44,945 1,208 2.7 1,054,244
    44,945 is 4.2% of total tests
    Who else but the AMERICAN PEOPLE could have done this!!!
    Now you have to do it for a minimum of 18 more days or until the Government can find a way to replace the UNREPLACEABLE.

  184. DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    6/23/2020 35,383 4,195 13.4 578,640
    6/24/2020 38,539 3,156 8.9 445,072
    6/25/2020 36,586 -1,956 5 663,776
    6/26/2020 46,731 2,573 7 620,535
    6/27/2020 42,613 -4,118 -8.8 710,715
    6/28/2020 32,515 -10,098 -23 524,174
    6/29/2020 43,737 11,222 34.5 597,037
    6/30/2020 44,945 1,208 2.7 1,054,244
    7/1/2020 49,754 4,809 10.6 611,917
    49,754 is 7.9% of total tests

  185. DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    6/23/2020 35,383 4,195 13.4 578,640
    6/24/2020 38,539 3,156 8.9 445,072
    6/25/2020 36,586 -1,956 5 663,776
    6/26/2020 46,731 2,573 7 620,535
    6/27/2020 42,613 -4,118 -8.8 710,715
    6/28/2020 32,515 -10,098 -23 524,174
    6/29/2020 43,737 11,222 34.5 597,037
    6/30/2020 44,945 1,208 2.7 1,054,244
    7/1/2020 49,754 4,809 10.6 611,917
    7/2/2020 53,274 3,520 7 743,093
    53,274 is 7.16% of total tests.
    You are doing something no-one will believe.
    I am enjoying listening to the news?

  186. DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    6/23/2020 35,383 4,195 13.4 578,640
    6/24/2020 38,539 3,156 8.9 445,072
    6/25/2020 36,586 -1,956 5 663,776
    6/26/2020 46,731 2,573 7 620,535
    6/27/2020 42,613 -4,118 -8.8 710,715
    6/28/2020 32,515 -10,098 -23 524,174
    6/29/2020 43,737 11,222 34.5 597,037
    6/30/2020 44,945 1,208 2.7 1,054,244
    7/1/2020 49,754 4,809 10.6 611,917
    7/2/2020 53,274 3,520 7 743,093
    7/3/2020 54,704 1,430 2.6 762,117
    54,704 is 7.1% of total tests.
    All I can think is they are finding hot spots and testing them hard. The % of tests is not going down rapidly as I thought it would.
    MORE TESTS WOULD HELP. look what you did on the 30th.

  187. DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    6/23/2020 35,383 4,195 13.4 578,640
    6/24/2020 38,539 3,156 8.9 445,072
    6/25/2020 36,586 -1,956 5 663,776
    6/26/2020 46,731 2,573 7 620,535
    6/27/2020 42,613 -4,118 -8.8 710,715
    6/28/2020 32,515 -10,098 -23 524,174
    6/29/2020 43,737 11,222 34.5 597,037
    6/30/2020 44,945 1,208 2.7 1,054,244
    7/1/2020 49,754 4,809 10.6 611,917
    7/2/2020 53,274 3,520 7 743,093
    7/3/2020 54,704 1,430 2.6 762,117
    7/4/2020 44,500 10,204 18.6 615,452
    44,500 is 7.2% of total tests.It was a holiday. We will see how the next 2 days look.

  188. DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    6/23/2020 35,383 4,195 13.4 578,640
    6/24/2020 38,539 3,156 8.9 445,072
    6/25/2020 36,586 -1,956 5 663,776
    6/26/2020 46,731 2,573 7 620,535
    6/27/2020 42,613 -4,118 -8.8 710,715
    6/28/2020 32,515 -10,098 -23 524,174
    6/29/2020 43,737 11,222 34.5 597,037
    6/30/2020 44,945 1,208 2.7 1,054,244
    7/1/2020 49,754 4,809 10.6 611,917
    7/2/2020 53,274 3,520 7 743,093
    7/3/2020 54,704 1,430 2.6 762,117
    7/4/2020 44,500 -10,204 18.6 615,452
    7/5/2020 42,585 -1,915 4.3 668,391
    42,585 is 6.3% of total tests.
    Looks like we started in the right direction. 7.2% yesterday.
    More tests now means less to remove later.

  189. DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    6/23/2020 35,383 4,195 13.4 578,640
    6/24/2020 38,539 3,156 8.9 445,072
    6/25/2020 36,586 -1,956 5 663,776
    6/26/2020 46,731 2,573 7 620,535
    6/27/2020 42,613 -4,118 -8.8 710,715
    6/28/2020 32,515 -10,098 -23 524,174
    6/29/2020 43,737 11,222 34.5 597,037
    6/30/2020 44,945 1,208 2.7 1,054,244
    7/1/2020 49,754 4,809 10.6 611,917
    7/2/2020 53,274 3,520 7 743,093
    7/3/2020 54,704 1,430 2.6 762,117
    7/4/2020 44,500 -10,204 18.6 615,452
    7/5/2020 42,585 -1,915 4.3 668,391
    7/6/2020 49,379 6,794 15.9 546,136
    49,379 is 9.0% of total tests.
    CDC’s CALCULATION OF TOTAL TESTS IS TOTAL GARBAGE.
    The percent of total positive to total tests went up 42.8%.
    I assume the total positive is correct because to many people rely on it.
    I do believe you are removing more positive than the virus is creating. The only way to get this under control is to exceed more than a million tests daily until the 17th. If you do that they will haave to design a sampling system that will keep the virusunder control.

  190. DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    6/23/2020 35,383 4,195 13.4 578,640
    6/24/2020 38,539 3,156 8.9 445,072
    6/25/2020 36,586 -1,956 5 663,776
    6/26/2020 46,731 2,573 7 620,535
    6/27/2020 42,613 -4,118 -8.8 710,715
    6/28/2020 32,515 -10,098 -23 524,174
    6/29/2020 43,737 11,222 34.5 597,037
    6/30/2020 44,945 1,208 2.7 1,054,244
    7/1/2020 49,754 4,809 10.6 611,917
    7/2/2020 53,274 3,520 7 743,093
    7/3/2020 54,704 1,430 2.6 762,117
    7/4/2020 44,500 -10,204 18.6 615,452
    7/5/2020 42,585 -1,915 4.3 668,391
    7/6/2020 49,379 6,794 15.9 546,136
    7/7/2020 54,153 4,774 13.7 669,073
    54,153 is 8.1% of total tests. I do have my doubts the total tests from the CDC is correct. That is all we have.
    If we could do close to 1 million a day for the next 10 days (17th) that is the 18th day. All you can do is your best.

  191. The government just announced they are adding testing capacity in the hot areas because now they are looking for the ASYMPTOMATIC. We tried and I think we had chance a couple of weeks ago. I thank Ms. Curry for the use of her websight. I will put my dumb pile of numbers away and watch what happens. I thank all that believed this could work.

  192. DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    6/30/2020 44,945 1,208 2.7 1,054,244
    7/1/2020 49,754 4,809 10.6 611,917
    7/2/2020 53,274 3,520 7 743,093
    7/3/2020 54,704 1,430 2.6 762,117
    7/4/2020 44,500 -10,204 18.6 615,452
    7/5/2020 42,585 -1,915 4.3 668,391
    7/6/2020 49,379 6,794 15.9 546,136
    7/7/2020 54,153 4,774 13.7 669,073
    7/8/2020 51,007 3,146 5.8 562,760
    51,007 is 9.1% of total tests. We are treading water at 50,00 removed by testing and 50,000 removed by time (antibodies). That is 100,000 a day removed by antibodies and the same infected daily.
    At one time we were treading water at 20,000.

    • DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
      6/30/2020 44,945 1,208 2.7 1,054,244
      7/1/2020 49,754 4,809 10.6 611,917
      7/2/2020 53,274 3,520 7 743,093
      7/3/2020 54,704 1,430 2.6 762,117
      7/4/2020 44,500 -10,204 18.6 615,452
      7/5/2020 42,585 -1,915 4.3 668,391
      7/6/2020 49,379 6,794 15.9 546,136
      7/7/2020 54,153 4,774 13.7 669,073
      7/8/2020 61,289 7,136 13.1 732,871
      61,289 is 8.3% of total tests.
      used 6:00 PM CDT instead of 7:PM CDT
      Time to give it up. Nature will take it from here.

  193. DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    6/30/2020 44,945 1,208 2.7 1,054,244
    7/1/2020 49,754 4,809 10.6 611,917
    7/2/2020 53,274 3,520 7 743,093
    7/3/2020 54,704 1,430 2.6 762,117
    7/4/2020 44,500 -10,204 18.6 615,452
    7/5/2020 42,585 -1,915 4.3 668,391
    7/6/2020 49,379 6,794 15.9 546,136
    7/7/2020 54,153 4,774 13.7 669,073
    7/8/2020 61,289 7,136 13.1 732,871
    7/9/2050 59,941 -1,348 -2.1 684,805
    7/10/2020 71,072 11,131 18.5 825,621
    71,072 is 8.6% of total tests.
    I have to continue this to show what could have been months ago if we could have gotten enough to parpticipate.

  194. DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    7/6/2020 49,379 6,794 15.9 546,136
    7/7/2020 54,153 4,774 13.7 669,073
    7/8/2020 61,289 7,136 13.1 732,871
    7/9/2050 59,941 -1,348 -2.1 684,805
    7/10/2020 71,072 11,131 18.5 825,621
    7/11/2020 60,998 -10,074 -14.1 795,329
    60,998 is 7.6% of total test

  195. I am updating the stupid pile of numbers daily. I will wait a few more days and post it.

  196. DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    7/10/2020 71,072 11,131 18.5 825,621
    7/11/2020 60,998 -10,074 -14.1 795,329
    7/12/2020 57,414 -3,364 -5.5 518,651
    7/13/2020 63,879 6,465 11.2 764,147
    7/14/2020 64,427 547 0.8 549,227
    7/15/2020 70,105 5,678 8.8 970,375
    If we are correct, now we start a quick drop to 20,000 positive a day and then treading water. Of caurse they have to keep the number of tests very high.

Leave a Reply to Ragnaar Cancel 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