Covid discussion thread: Part X

by Judith Curry

Latest roundup of interesting articles.  I’m running out of steam on this topic, here are some random articles I’ve flagged over the last few weeks.

New study in Spain addes evidence against herd immunity [link]

Very good article: Key ingredients of good science in times of complex crises? Pluralism, analytical rigor + an appreciation decisions must be made under uncertainty. [link]

A guide to R:  The pandemic’s misunderstood metric [link]

Hypothesis: Restrictions on Hydroxychloroquine Contribute to the COVID-19 Cases Surge [link]

How mask filter fleece is made [link]

7 year coronavirus trail from bat cave via Whan lab [link]

Experts are indicating that a new coronavirus mutation spreads faster but doesn’t make people sicker, and perhaps may, over time, be less severe. [link]

This is good:  How masks went from don’t wear to must have [link]

Two weeks after Russia’s home-grown Covid-19 vaccine was administered to a group of volunteers, there have been no negative side-effects. Hopes are now high that mass immunization could be possible within a few months. [link]

Here is another new study (N=518) showing the Zelenko protocol (HCQ + AZ + Zinc) dramatically reduces hospitalization rates of Covid-19 patients. (p<0.001) preprints.org/manuscript/202

HCQ for prophylaxis in India over 342,000 healthcare workers. Out of 66649 close contacts of covid+ve patients, apparently just 0.2% actually got the disease. [link]

Coronavirus autopsies: A story of 38 brains, 87 lungs and 42 hearts [link]

Sunlight inactivates the airborne virus that causes Covid  [link]

The tricky math of herd immunity for COVID-19 [link]

New data on the Multi-system Inflammatory Syndrome in 186 kids. [link]

Evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was already circulating in Northern Italy in December 2019, based on the analysis of wastewater. [link]

How the world missed COVID-19’s silent spread [link]

Rheumatologists’ view on the use of HCQ [link]

The risk of rushing the vaccine development [link]

COVID-19 pandemic and mental health consequences: systematic review of the current evidence [link]

482 responses to “Covid discussion thread: Part X

  1. dougbadgero

    I think “herd immunity” is a misunderstood concept. When do we think we will reach “herd immunity” for the H3N2 virus that caused the 1968 pandemic and continues to circulate as a seasonal influenza virus still? It is an idealized concept of a real word situation that does not normally occur. Vaccines like that for measles are the exception not the rule.

  2. Geoff Sherrington

    Hoping to be helpful. Here is Australia we have seen some problems with mathematical analysis because there are different boundaries used for study areas, like State and Shire boundaries when boundaries might be better when related to medical effects (like area served by each major hospital) or put on an equal area mapping basis. Geoff S

  3. T cell immune response appears to be at least as important as antibody response. SARS-CoV-1 infections produced antibodies which faded over a couple of years, but T cell response in blood of recovered patients is still measurable after 17 years. SARS-CoV-2 infections have been cleared in patients with no measurable antibody response, but only a T cell immune response, according to researchers at the Karolinska Institutet. Interestingly, the sicker the Covid-19 patients appear to have a stronger the antibody response. T cell response is much harder to measure, but there is, I believe, some evidence that a strong T cell response implies a mild disease course.

    In any case, just measuring antibodies understates the prevalence of infections, based on the Karolinska Institutet results.

  4. “Here is another new study (N=518) showing the Zelenko protocol (HCQ + AZ + Zinc) dramatically reduces hospitalization rates of Covid-19 patients. (p<0.001)"

    Not clear if this is "another new study" or just some detail on Zelenko's original "study". Zelenko is one of the authors.

    From the comments:

    Comment 1

    "The main problem with this work is that the demographics of the control group are not reported, so we have no idea if they are similar. This them means that we have no idea if the differences in outcomes are because of the treatment, or if they would be expected because of the demographies of the groups"

    Comment 7

    "I am concerned with a number of biases in the data that seem to stack the deck in favor of the treatment group:

    1) The inclusion of 37 cases substantiated by an antibody test is highly problematic, as in order to receive the antibody rest, each of these patients needed to survive covid. Any additional patients that died prior to otherwise receiving an antibody test are excluded. This stacks the deck in favor of the treatment group, and absent any intervention at all, we would still expect them to fare better than the control.

    2) Separate from the study itself, I feel compelled to observe that the data described in the report seems to contradict public statements by one of the authors, Dr. Zev Zelenko. The author has publicly claimed to have treated more than 1500 patients with this treatment, but only provides data on 377.

    The study states that the control group is based on laboratory results of patients in the same community – how big a population were these drawn from? If these are Dr. Zelenko’s patients, where are the rest of them? Why are we presented with no results from the other patients treated with this cocktail? If these are not Dr. Zelenko’s patients, who are they?

    This is an interesting read, but in the public interest, the authors should publish results from the entirety of the patient population treated by Dr. Zelenko."

    • I think he only reported in the preprint those who got a positive test. Maybe the patients who were not in the high-risk category could not access testing?

      The lack of information on the control group is certainly problematic. However, the low mortality and hospitalization rate on a at-risk population indeed look promising, or am I missing something?

      • I think the problem comes in with this:

        “For this untreated control group only outcome data for hospitalization and allcause death was available and used for the statistical comparison with the treatment group”.

        It’s impossible to know, as best I can tell, the ages or anything at all about the medical condition of the untreated control group. Were they older? Had other conditions? Were they sicker to start with?

        The treated group showed up in an outpatient setting. Did a lot of the untreated group show up in the emergency room?

      • Matthew R Marler

        James Cross: “For this untreated control group only outcome data for hospitalization and allcause death was available and used for the statistical comparison with the treatment group”.

        My comment disappeared. Even in the treated group the lag between symptoms and treatment was missing for more than half the patients. This study appears to be sloppy.

      • Don Monfort

        It’s a retrospective, loosely based on historical events in the war on COVID 19. Fog of battle is a factor.

  5. “Evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was already circulating in Northern Italy in December 2019, based on the analysis of wastewater.”
    And evidence that it was in Wuhan in November.
    It was in California in December or early January, but not detected until the end of January.
    Which means the WHO, Europe, and the CDC failed to detect a new, deadly, contagious corona virus for about two months and saw no need for lockdowns for another month after detection. Which, frankly, happens and the focus should be on addressing the miss.
    Since the corona virus was spreading in the US for three months before the first lockdowns, the lockdowns couldn’t prevent spread- they could only slow it and attempt to limit the overwhelming of hospitals. Hospitals were not overwhelmed at the peak and certainly aren’t now, which means the cautious reopening is valid.
    But we’re not allowed to acknowledge any of this because some people dislike the US president to the point of debilitation. These individuals – who make up most of our academic, media and political class – insist on the narrative that everything was the US president’s fault, everything started in March, and perma-lockdown is currently necessary (with exceptions for approved political activity, naturally). Oh, and the other news is that they arrested the woman who procured children for the who’s-who list of world political and academic leaders. And we expect indictments this summer of the people who abused the secret anti-terrorism court and the investigative power of various American intelligence and federal law enforcement to further a political goal.
    It’s going to be a long year.

    • One thing I would add is to point out that implementing the lockdowns after the vast spread likely ended up causing both the total infection rate as well as the mortality rate to be far higher than it would have been otherwise.
      And yes, this is a bug coup.

  6. The, ‘silver bullet’ recently put by an earnest Texas doctor that sounds compelling (use of a nebulizer and common asthma drug augmented with zinc and a common antibiotic)– we will soon see…

    • After an Odessa doctor said in recent media interviews he believes he’s found the “silver bullet” for treating COVID-19, Midland Memorial’s chief medical officer disputed that claim, saying there’s no evidence the treatment offers any benefit to coronavirus patients.

      Dr. Richard Bartlett, a family medicine doctor in Odessa, has said in multiple interviews with broadcast and radio stations that he’s treated dozens of COVID-19 patients with an inhaled form of budesonide, which is often used to treat asthma.

      When asked about the treatment during a press conference last week, Chief Medical Officer Dr. Larry Wilson said there have been no studies showing a benefit in using inhaled steroids to treat COVID-19. There is evidence that some steroids, including dexamethasone, may be effective in treating severe cases when given orally or intravenously, Wilson said. However, giving steroids to patients who are not severely ill may do more harm than good, he said.

      https://www.mrt.com/mrt.com/news/article/Wilson-No-benefit-using-inhaled-steroids-for-15390142.php?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=briefing&utm_campaign=mrt_afternoon_subscriber

      • Whoa, Don! I tested positive for WuFlu yesterday at the VA. After a negative chest X-ray, the Dr. gave me 10 mg of oral Dexamethasone. Are you implying the Army is still out to kill me? “However, giving steroids to patients who are not severely ill may do more harm than good …” is the quote.

      • Dave –
        I am implying nothing about who is still trying to kill you. I am reporting what the head medical officer of a nearby hospital said about Bartlett’s claims.

      • The Recovery study showed benefit for dexamethasone in ventilator patients, less so for hospitalized patients requiring oxygen but not on ventilators, and no benefit for patients not requiring oxygen supplementation. So anyone with a positive PCR, and no evidence of decreased oxygenation does not have a medical indication for dexamethasone. The dexamethasone presumably acts to decrease inflammatory response and may affect lung damage or prevent thromboembolic complications in other organs. Patients without those processes would likely not benefit and may have deleterious effects on T-cell function, blood sugar control, …

        Inhaled steroids could have local lung effects, but little systemic effect, so the benefit on other organs would be lost vs. systemic steroids.

      • Apparently, a lancet article held out the possibility of some effectivity whereas the following i Doctor appears to be skeptical but offers no specific information to the contrary…

        https://www.medpagetoday.com/blogs/skeptical-cardiologist/86521


  7. The evidence is mounting from frontline caregivers dealing with Covid19 patients. Previous posts provide examples of HCQ treatment along with other proven medicines (eg. Azithromycin) and supplements (eg. Zinc. vitamins C and D). Summarized in the chart above is the role of HCQ+ according to the progression of the disease Covid19.

    HCQ Prevents Covid19
    The first column on the left is sometimes called PrEP, or pre-exposure to the virus SARS CV2. Now we are getting studies confirming that HCQ plays an important prophylactic role in blocking the virus from taking hold when someone is infected. The Times of India June 19, 2020, article is HCQ beneficial as preventive drug: SMS doctors told ICMR.
    https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/jaipur/hcq-beneficial-as-preventive-drug-sms-docs-told-icmr/articleshow/76453826.cms
    My synopsis is https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2020/07/07/hcq-proven-first-responder-to-sars-cv2/

  8. “It is a scientific consensus that has, in turn, fed into mainstream media coverage, with now wide acceptance that a natural, spillover event is the most probable cause of Sars-CoV-2.” ~BBC

    Unfortunately, given our experience with the politicized science of climate change, a bureaucratically sanctioned, ‘scientific consensus’ no longer lends a presumption of respectability to ‘official’ opinions.

  9. WRT to your retweet of the Harper’s letter:
    “While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture….”

    Who’s “censoring” speech from the right- give me one example? The only one I can think of is the bizarre claim that “the right” unfairly went after AOC’s Green New Deal by… gasp!… quoting it’s author accurately. Maybe they mean the horrifying suggestion that the left’s #MeToo rules applied to people on the left? The frightening authoritarian notion that wholesale looting is unacceptable?

    The letter provides not a single example from the right, but provides no less than six specific examples from the last month alone from the left. Going back more than a month would require pages and pages.
    This is really a declaration of unprincipled raw power- they are fine with cancel culture, they simply want it applied more selectively. When you ponder why people no longer trust institutions, this is a prime example.
    The signatories are luminaries in the arts, academia, literature, and journalism from the best known institutions in the land- including most of the Ivies. Eight of the signers are faculty at Yale or Harvard and they cannot get through a three-paragraph statement of principle without including an exception based on politics.
    Included in the signers is JK Rowling, who is in hot water for saying men don’t get periods. She believes you can say that if you’re feminist from the left but not if you’re just some person who thinks biology is real. The latter should be banned from any employment, if not jailed. She is furious that some lesser lights on the left have applied this standard to JK Rowling!
    The caveats, people, pay attention to the caveats!!

    • aporiac1960

      I presume they are referring to the rather censorious attitude of some on the American religious right. However …

      a) to the extent such people have institutional power (which is tiny compared to the left), censorship it is not political objective.

      b) their concern tends to be more focussed on public decency than political thought, which may be old fashioned, but is hardly a culturally or politically radical position. Plenty of feminists, for example, regard overly sexual public imagery as exploitative of women.

      c) Censorship pursued as a political objective by the right (e.g. Mccarthyism) has been dead for more than half a century. It’s about as contemporary as the British Empire.

    • Perhaps the most obvious example of actual censorship on the right (as opposed to faux censorship – that while a problem IMO isn’t censorship – that my friends on the right get vapors about daily from their fainting couches), and in fact by far the most obvious example of real censorship these days from either side of the aisle, is the call on the right for the government to intervene with private sector entities (such as Facebook and Twitter) exercising their rights of free speech in regulating how they supply their services – such as issuing warnings to or removing their services from customers who violate their terms of service.

      But a close second is the most powerful man in the world who, from the right side of the aisle, uses the power of the government, and the power of wealth, to actually censure any number of people who seek to criticized him publicly. Twonjufe examples have been in the news lately, with nary a peep from the sanctimonious free speech crusaders on the right.

      It’s always good for a chuckle to watch when those pearl-clutching about “censorship” from the right have absolutely nothing to say when Trump talks about changing libel laws so as to make it easier to silence people.

      There were a few people, I think, on the right who showed a modicum of consistency by complaining when Republicans stripped Steve King of his committee assignments – but it was hard to hear their whispering amidst the hypocritical roar for the obvious reason that they didn’t want to transfer the stain of king’s racism.

      At least there are some political entities who make it a mission to remain (mostly) consistent inntheir arguments in this issue – such as the ACLU. But thst is mostly considered a left-leaning organization. Perhaps there are some who are mostly from the right? I’d love to see an example. Has anyone seen organized resistance on the right against Trump’s use of political and economic power to actually censor people?

      • “…Facebook and Twitter…”
        Absolutely hilarious. Your only example of “censorship” from the right is the complaint that Facebook and Twitter are engaging in censorship. Because you approve of the social media giants engaging in censorship as long as it’s being done by leftists.

        Now I think “Joshua” is a parody account. A right-winger is making fun of leftists with this avatar. It’s pretty good too.

      • It’s not “censorship” when a private sector entity exercises it’s rights to determine terms of service.

        You are entitled to express your views via any other vehicle through which you choose to do so, provided that if it’s a private sector entity you abide by their terms of service.

        Should I claim “CENSORSHIP”!!1!!!!!1!!! if Fox News editorializes when they run an excerpt of what Biden says? How does Twitter or Facebook editorializing when Trump says something any different.

        It’s actually a bit scary that you’re so completely incapable of seeing anything that lies outside your partisan blinders. Not because your views matter much in the real world – but because they align with an actual ongoing abuse of governmental power.

        You clutch your pearls over faux censorship and turn a blind eye to actual censorship, as we see with the current administration on a daily basis when they use their state power to actually prevent people from expressing their views.- such as publishing a book critical of the president.

      • It’s interesting how inherited privilege, people gaining privileges at birth that others don’t enjoy, serves to narrow people’s scope of understanding, and contrary-wise, lead to an overblown sense of entitlement.

        If Judith moderates my comments on this blog is it CENSORSHIP!!!11!!!!???

        Of course not. It’s her exercising some control over how a service she supplies (in effect) is used. I can go elsewhere to express my views if I don’t like it. I have no privilege to comment here except that which she offers.

        That people cry CENSORSHIP!!!11!!!! if their blog comments are moderated is another example of the same kind of entitlement we see when snowflakes complain if Twitter moderates comments made in that service.

        Of course, there is a real issue of scale, that has some implications to the questions at hand. Twitter, in essence, (as compared to Judith’s blog) comes closer to overlapping with issues of freedom of the press.

        But the basic principle still applies and it isn’t surprising thst people who have never been confronted with real censorship would conflate their inflated sense of privilege with actual victimization.

        Everyone loves to be a victim, fighting for their freedoms. It’s so elevating. Tales banal reality and makes it nobel and essential.

      • Nobel… and noble

        (borrowing Trump’s technique for pretending he doesn’t make mistakes).

      • “It’s not “censorship” when a private sector entity exercises it’s rights to determine terms of service.”

        If you had any idea what you were talking about, you’d know that wasn’t the complaint. The complaint was that the companies are applying their terms of service highly selectively- you could say anything you want if you’re on the left and you couldn’t say anything if you were on the right.
        Like most things left wing, the rules only apply when politically convenient and never to anyone on the left.
        By-the-way, this has long been a bi-partisan civil rights issue- equitable application of “terms of service” is how they ended segregated lunch counters.
        It’s interesting, but utterly unsurprising, to watch the left abandon all of it’s once sacrosanct belief in civil rights now that it believes it can assert control. BLM even advocates for segregation. It’s also sad and divisive. One of the reasons I keep engaging with you, Joshua, is because I just cannot accept the idea that you know all of this and have made the conscious choice for sophistry.

      • The other silly error here by Josh concerns scientists being “censored.” This is such a lie. Every job has conditions of employment. One that is almost universal is that communications concerning your job or your technical work must be approved by management. In fact, generally your work product is the property of your employer. Any government scientist who wants to go public can be fired if he doesn’t get approval first. There is nothing wrong with this and its been around for at least 100 years. In any case, Trump’s administration does not have a worse track record than Obama who actually used the IRS and the FBI to go after those who said things he didn’t like, particularly about the Iran deal.

      • Don Monfort

        Our little left loon “friend” is lost. A toppling statue must have fallen on it’s little pointy head.

      • Roger Knights

        “But a close second is the most powerful man in the world who, from the right side of the aisle, uses the power of the government, and the power of wealth, to actually censure any number of people who seek to criticized him publicly.”

        Censuring (condemning) ≠ censoring.

      • Jeff –

        > If you had any idea what you were talking about, you’d know that wasn’t the complaint.

        Lol. So you get to determine what “the” complaint is? Of course there’s masses of people on the right who are complaining that companies like Twitter are “censoring” them. A simple Google will prove it. In fact, it’s hilarious that you say it isn’t the claim after having whined about that every thing in this very thread. So you have simply ducked the question of what comprises “censorship” and instead just double down even when saying that no one said it? Funny.

        > The complaint was that the companies are applying their terms of service highly selectively- …

        So you say. And others say different. But of course privileged people who actually never faced actual censorship would claim “censorship” if they don’t get everything they want. Unfortunately, it is to be expected.

        > you could say anything you want if you’re on the left and you couldn’t say anything if you were on the right.

        So you say. I don’t think it’s true and the case certainly hasn’t been proven. Obviously, people on the left have been booted off of Twitter, or whatever, so your claim is ridiculous just on face value. But let’s pretend that you aren’t who you are, and so prone to exaggeration and pearl-clutching, then we might take your statement to me that they choose who to allow to use their services selectively based on ideology.

        Well, first you have to actually make a case rather than simply whine about it because you feel like you’re a victim. Then you have to decide what you want to do about something like that, and what the societal implications might be. Apparently you think that the government should step in and prevent Twitter from delivering their services to people selectively based on ideology. I guess I’m not that surprised given that many people towards the extreme right tend towards authoritarianism. But you aren’t alone in thinking that the government should step in an dictate to companies like Twitter how they should conduct their business (albeit not because of some faux “censorship” but because of the scale of their power to affect a market). There are quite a few folks on the left who agree with you on that.

        Maybe that’s a discussion that’s worth having – but it shouldn’t be something assumed simply because a bunch of snowflakes think they’re being victimized. Snowflakes always think they’re being victimized. It makes them feel good.

        > By-the-way, this has long been a bi-partisan civil rights issue- equitable application of “terms of service” is how they ended segregated lunch counters.

        Well, there is no doubt that “the right” objected to the clivil rights act back in the day and many libertarians object to it even up until now.

        > It’s interesting, but utterly unsurprising, to watch the left abandon all of it’s once sacrosanct belief in civil rights now that it believes it can assert control. BLM even advocates for segregation.

        “The left” doesn’t think that just because some snowflakes on the right claim that they’re being victimized – despite their inherited privilege and disproportionate access to power – makes it so. So “the left” hasn’t “abandoned a belief in civil rights.” Nonetheless, there is little doubt in my mind that many on “the left” just like many on “the right” are selective in how they approach an issue like civil rights. It’s human nature to do so.

        But none of that excuses the hypocrisy that I described, and that you yourself displayed. Saying “they did it first” or “they do it too” doesn’t cancel the phenomenon of which I peak

        > One of the reasons I keep engaging with you, Joshua, is because I just cannot accept the idea that you know all of this and have made the conscious choice for sophistry.

        Assuming for the sake of your argument that I “know all of this” and “have made the conscious choice for sophistry” – how would that explain why you keep engaging with me? You have launched a number of insults my way recently. All suggesting that there would be no point in engaging with me. Which then raises the question of why you’d be doing so. I don’t buy your explanation. I think you should dig deeper for the causality.

        Just to be clear – I support the letter writers, I just don’t share your pearl-clutching about the phenomenon. I

        don’t agree with people who want to “de-platform” people they disagree with. As one example, I don’t mind it if rightwingers come to speak on college campuses. And I don’t agree with protesters who seek to prevent them from doing so. Nonetheless, I think that people who comprise a given community have a right to determine what takes place in that community. So it gets tricky when you run up against the “tyranny of the majority” and as such, I think that there are plenty of examples where people on “the left” have gone to far to limit what takes place in their communities. Still, (1) overall, this is a process whereby people who have been denied voice, and agency, in our collective society are gaining voice and agency and the overall movement should be seen in that regard. If we consider the statue removal as a parallel, the demands that they be taken down represent the voice of people who never had a voice when they were erected and, (2) I expect some level of overreach. That isn’t an excuse for over reach. Over reach is over reach – especially when violence or the threat of violence is part of what is going on. Or even other types of “harm.” Nonetheless, while not excusing over reach, I do see what’s going on as some of the signal in the noise. Yes, some people have been harmed by over reach on “the left.” No one should avoid accountability for that, IMO. And I applaud the letter-writers in that vein. But I see that happening in a larger trajectory where more people are gaining more access to more agency – and I welcome that aspect of the overall trajectory and I don’t lose sight of that simply because some pearl-clutchers want to engage in outrage porn because they’re so upset that they no longer have such a disproportionate grasp on the levers of power.

      • EPA director Scott Pruitt self censored by installing a $43,000 sound proof booth in his office.

      • I’ll try one last time.

        “Nonetheless, I think that people who comprise a given community have a right to determine what takes place in that community.”

        The people complaining literally gave examples where Twitter and Facebook removed accounts of right wingers but not left wingers for the exact same “offense.” They literally saw complaints by employees that they were told to selectively delete posts to favor one political side over the other.
        Twitter and Facebook – the companies – are not “communities” they are technology that communities use to communicate. Your community is your friends, followers and those you follow. Twitter and Facebook have been accurately accused of selectively and arbitrarily canceling communities purely for political reasons. That is censorship. I think you know this.
        The correct analogy would be that we all understand that since Verizon has “the right to determine what takes place in that community” of telephones, they will listen in to the call with your dad and turn off your phone if anyone says something negative about a Democrat. It’s their right.

      • J’s verbosity in the last few weeks reminds me of a boss I once had. He never had an unspoken thought.

      • Kid –

        Thanks for reading Can’t tell ya’ how much it means to me.

      • Don Monfort

        You are flattering yourself if your really believe that there are more than a small minority denizens here, who take your left loon nonsense seriously enough to read it. We skim for glaringly outrageous tidbits to stuff back down your throat.

      • I love that you pretend that you don’t read my comment, Don.

        Cheif used to pretend the same thing.

        He also used to promise to never respond to my comments, much as you do. If course like you he never followed through with that childish promise – although I have to say he didn’t make the promise as many times as you laughably have.

        At any rate, as always thanks for reading. I can’t tell you how much it means to me.

      • Don Monfort

        Skim, joshie. Google it: “skim” You are a punching bag clown.

      • Don –

        Google “claim” “not read” “ever agsin.” Google it.

        How many times have you made this claim? 5? 10?

        How many times have you failed to live up to that promise? 5? 10?

        Your claims that you dont read my comments have the same level of credibility. It’s obvious from your many responses to my comments that your read them.

        Why do you want to pretend otherwise? It’s kind of weird, actually. If you aren’t proud of your constant reading of my comments, just stop reading them as you’ve promised so many times to do.

        Really just kind of weird.

      • Don Monfort

        Didn’t read it, joshie. We been here long enough to know what you will say before you say it. Why have you given up yapping at Judith’s heels? She squashed your little butt. Pathetic. Attention seeking punching bag clown. I hope you enjoyed this one. You are too easy.

      • Geoff Sherrington

        Joshua,
        It remains possible that I was the first scientist to have an account suspended by “The Conversation”. There was no report from them of what offended their community standards. I merely showed some data questioning some science if global warming. They are clearly among the groups causing the President Trump distinction between opinion and publication.
        If The Conversation had been a purely private Enterprise I would not have bothered to question their actions. Win some, lose some. But they were/are partly funded by taxpayers, which puts them in a different category for accountability.
        Blind Freddie can read The Con and conclude that it leans to the left. Joshua, do you think that it is proper for them to censor? Do they have the legal ability? Should they have any ability? Geoff S

      • Goeff –

        To the extent that someone can make a convincingly credible case that they’ve been “canceled” because of ideological or scientific intolerance, I wouldn’t offer a defense – whether the canceler is a private sector entity, a Pinocchio sector entity, or some combination thereof.

        My questions are with respect to what is the seriousness of the “canceling?” IMO, people have a tendency to use these types of events as grievance-signaling and outrage-mining events, in support of a larger, ideological, tribalistic agenda. They fit well within a victimhood-us/oppressor-them narrative. I’m not diminishing the seriousness, but I’m asking that it be judged in context. These events take place within a larger societal framework, within a larger historical context, and as a last of a larger societal trajectory.

        It is difficult to define “ideology,” or political identity, or scientific perspective, cleanly as the basis for many of these events. People inherently have differing perspectives on where the boundaries should be drawn. One person saying they’ve been canceled for political reasons, for another person is being canceled for hate speech. One person saying they’re been canceled for an inconvenient scientific perspective is for another person someone being canceled for a misleading, or invalid analysis. While we might seek to find objective lines of definition for drawing these distinctions, there will always be a level of subjectivity. For example, i might think I’ve been moderated at this blog because my views are inconvenient, but another might say it’s because I’m an annoying ankle-biting troll who’s just annoying and trying to distract people from important discussions and never has anything of value to say. And someone else might get moderated at realclimate where an exactly diametric assessment will be made about the associated lines of definition.

        It’s tricky stuff. As people on the right today got all excited about the Harper’s letter, colonel Vindman was retiring from the military because of retaliation against him for speaking truthfully about matters of national defence. And nary a peep on the right.

        These definitions are hard to make cleanly…and there is a lot of selectivity and subjectivity involved. In such a situation, people should be circumspect and take the time to be extra careful about their own biases. People should remember that they are the easiest person for them to fool. People should resist the tendency to self-victimize, and try not to take themselves too seriously.

        And people should take the time to understand what “censorship” really means.

      • Geoff S, when The Conversation was first mooted, it appeared to be intended as an open forum. I submitted some material which was rejected not on merit but because I wasn’t an academic (only a former economic policy adviser to Prime Ministers of the UK and Australia). It quickly became clear that the Conservation was a leftist-only forum, and it has remained so.

      • Joshua, The Conversation is in part government funded, which suggests that it should be impartial. It arose in Australia from a discussion between a left-wing newspaper editor, Andrew Jaspan, and Glyn Davis, a Labor political adviser and supporter (I worked with him on policy issues years ago) and a uni vice-chancellor. From its outset, it has been an organ of the Left rather than a genuine “conversation.” I gave up on it long ago, but know from media citations that it has not changed its spots. It is not difficult to see that it’s decisions on what to publish are determined by its political stance rather than merit.

      • aporiac1960

        “private sector entities (such as Facebook and Twitter) exercising their rights of free speech” by censoring free speech.

        Don’t even know what to say in answer to someone who has managed to master this level of double-think. I can imagine how much dedication, self-discipline and training it must take to disfigure one’s intellect thus – it’s almost admirable!

      • Joshua, you seem to have difficulty saying things succinctly, so let me help you, re: comment July 8, 2020 at 11:02 pm

        “Intolerance of the views and speech of others is generally a bad thing. We should be a society willing to listen to and respond to and debate others. We should be tolerant of different opinions and views.

        “The opposite of tolerance is groupthink.”

        There. Now, I know I didn’t capture everything, but for the sake of the rest of us you might want to think of how you can say what you want to say in as few words as possible. I try to do this myself.

      • In my own experience, the Conversation is very much a groupthink forum. It’s intolerant of views that aren’t mainstream, not necessarily through censorship, but certainly through overwhelming and nasty attacks by people who refuse to actually have a conversation. Might simply reflect the broader society.

      • “…is the call on the right for the government to intervene with private sector entities (such as Facebook and Twitter)…”

        Which is to fight as dirty as the Left does. Complaining that the Right has no principles while having none themselves.

        Russian bots spent $5000 on Facebook ads and stole the election. I would die for Ukraine if knew where it was and could stomach Borscht. I need a safe space and a therapy dog because speech is violence.

        Odds are the Right is wrong to go after Facebook. So it’s about power and who has it. 10,000 years of culture and philosophy. That’s us.

      • aporiac1960

        Ragnaar

        You wrote, “the call on the right for the government to intervene with private sector entities (such as Facebook and Twitter)…is to fight as dirty as the Left does” and “Odds are the Right is wrong to go after Facebook. ”

        I mostly consider myself a conservative, but think you are taking too dogmatic a view. Most conservatives are suspicious of government intervention in the operation of the free market, and rightly so because a) this is too often in the service of political objectives and b) even in the case that the objectives are good, government is a bungling bureaucracy that often achieves the precise opposite of its aims, or in the process of solving one problem inadvertently creates ten worse ones (and all expensively at that).

        However, although wary of state regulation, most conservatives see that it is sometimes an essential corrective to market distortions – including distortion in the sense of bringing about social harm. Conservatism is not an ideology, but an attitude – primarily a combination of skepticism and pragmatic. Pragmatism says regulation is sometimes required. Skepticism says narrowly and minimally, and only as a last resort.

        The market has delivered a revolution in low cost communications and computer technology, and these are now so important and integrated into contemporary life that not having access is widely considered to be disadvantaged as a citizen. That’s why, for example, most countries allow the market to provide internet infrastructure, but put some kind of universal access obligation on providers. Similarly, if the country operates a social safety net then financial support will typically be calculated to include the cost of some level of internet service. Both of these are in recognition of the reality that internet access is not a service like any other, but something close to a necessity in modern life. That doesn’t mean that the state should provide it, but the state has every reason to intervene to the level necessary to ensure the largest number of citizens can benefit from it. The question is: when did internet access flip from being something we can reasonably expect people to do without to something we can’t? This has something to do with the evolution of the technology and the evolution of our society. One might say that it is now so valuable that what is called a “digital divide” could become a real and important problem and can only grow more so. However, we can acknowledge this reality without losing our heads and including subscriptions to Netflix, Amazon Prime and premium sports channels as necessities of life.

        Another modern reality is that social media – the development of which is another aspect of the internet technical/social revolution – has become an important extension of the public square in which ideas are presented, developed and contested. How can we be certain of this? Those on the Left are doing their best control it. If public discourse is part of the life blood of a free society, and social media platforms are where public discourse takes place in 2020 then there must be an argument for protecting access.

        This is not unprecedented. For example, we consider access to utilities like electricity and the public water supply as near essentials for practical living in the modern world. That doesn’t mean that there are no circumstances in which you will be cut off from the supply, but we place significant hurdles in the way of utilities from taking taking this course of action. They have to jump through hoops, follow publicly open and documented procedures that can be externally audited and satisfy a stringent range of conditions that have been legislatively set because there is a recognition of the serious impact of them taking such a step. Why should there not be similar restrictions on companies like Twitter or Facebook, which pretend to be an open platform for public communication and discourse, have been adopted as such, but can be pressured to disconnect anyone for arbitrary reasons? All they need to say is the individual has broke their “terms of service”, but are under no obligation to be specific as to how, or to describe in meaningful detail the decision-making process. Furthermore, there is no independent oversight and no appeal. I don’t think a society that regards free speech as something of such importance as to be indispensable to its continuation as a free society can take a relaxed view about this in the 21st Century.

        I see no contradiction between my position and practical free market conservatism. There is a balance to be struck between potentially competing principles, that is all, i.e. situation normal and where conservative pragmatism and skepticism rather than ideology are the indispensable guides.

      • aporiac1960:

        You made a good argument. It is a utility. The Internet. But we can criticize utilities. We have roof top solar for instance. Fights over power lines. The utility’s natural gas pipelines. Which is where this Facebook devolution is going.

      • Don Monfort

        Government intervenes with private sector entities pervasively. That’s not the issue. The issue is that Facebook, Twitter et al. enjoy a privilege bestowed by government that exempts them from responsibility/liability for what is posted on their platforms. The theory is that they ain’t speaking/publishing, they are merely providing a bulletin board. OK, then stop managing content by editing/censoring stuff and kicking folks off the platform, because their political and social views are not left loon politically correct.

        47 U.S.C. § 230, a Provision of the Communication Decency Act. … Section 230 says that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider” (47 U.S.C. § 230).

        Social media is not open forum and has forfeited the right to benefit from 230 protection, by acting as editor-publisher.

      • Let me try to clarify. Govt >>> Facebook. Facebook becomes like XCEL. And you get rooftop solar. Don’t destroy Facebook. Capitalists made it. It is the epitome of Capitalism. It will find its way or fail. It knows Trump voters use it. They aren’ that stupid. Facebook helped destroy the WaPo and the NYT and, and, and, in a non-conspiratorial way, helped elect Trump.

        Say my friend over and over again expressed their hate of a politician. He spread and reinforced a certain point of view to people who voted for Trump. When he wasn’t in Facebook jail. While his approach was not optimal, it helped turn out people for Trump. Compared to what they would’ve got from MSM.

      • Don Monfort

        Are you not aware that the social media platforms are owned and operated by left loons that hire left loons almost exclusively and they are rabidly committed to promoting a left loon agenda, which is now focused on beating Trump by any means necessary? You are going to excuse this, because they are successful and making a lot of money?

      • As hard as Facebook tried to prevent it, Trump got elected and he drove his armored personal carrier right though Facebook. Liberty finds a way. I can see my Facebook friend in Facebook jail as he announces his release. I see the links to Alpha News which a right news source in Minnesota on Facebook. I can see Beck’s and Carter’s latest charges. The latest renewable silliness in Minnesota. The right is loyal and Facebook delivers many of them their view of the world.

        We exist with political defeats. The very definition of libertarianism. But we keep coming back. Facebook will carve out this and that. But they are fighting a losing game. As they have to devote more resources to that, it hurts their bottom line.

        Facebook is aware they have to listen to the right, and let them in. That’s where significant money is. Facebook learned the Fox News lesson. Being a lefty doesn’t pay very well when everyone else is offering the same lame product.

    • BTW – there has been much criticism from the right and the left of the Obama administration’s use of state power to actually (not faux) censor people. I will acknowledge that the criticisms in that regard have been mostly bipartisan.

      • Geoff Sherrington

        Joshua,
        Thank you for your response to my loss of account at The Conversation.
        You might have missed the point. It was NOT opinion that put me in the sin bin. It was science derived from peer-reviewed publications. Does a partly-funded-by-Government body have the authority to censor? Should it?

        Faustino,
        Did our paths cross in earelier times? I once calculated that I had had dinner with every Australian PM from Sir Robert Menzies to John Howard. Plus the 90th birthday of Dame Pattie. Had a weekend at Jabiru with Gough & Margaret. Not all of dinners all were intimate. Some were group grog ups. I willingly gave up at Rudd the Unmentionable. Geoff S

      • Goeff –

        > You might have missed the point. It was NOT opinion that put me in the sin bin. It was science derived from peer-reviewed publications.

        My guess is that the website moderators have a different view. I gave an example above of how subjectivity comes into play (no, I didn’t miss your point, you may have missed mine) in this question. I don’t know the details, but I know enough about how these situations arise to know that it wouldn’t make sense to just take your (or their) word for it.

        > Does a partly-funded-by-Government body have the authority to censor? Should it?

        Do they have the authority? Well, if they did as you say, then yes, unless you sue them and win.

        Should it? I’d say no, except that we do allow for some standards for government censorship. This doesn’t sound like such a case. But to make the case that it is inappropriate censorship you have a high bar. There are a lot of tricky standards, and as a highly invested party with a string ideological predisposition, it is easy for you to fool yourself about where the lines get drawn.

    • Of course, I forgot to mention another prominent real (not faux) case of censorship these days – the Trump administration’s use of state power to dictate what government researchers can and can’t say publicly about issues such as climate change.

      You’d think that among all the prominent examples of actual (not faux) use of state power to silence people these days, that’s one that would be discussed here at a blog that is loosely focused in climate change. But nary a peep.

      Geez, I wonder why?

    • Josh is very confused about freedom of speech. Enforcing the Sherman antitrust act against monopolies like Facebook or Twitter has nothing to do with “censorship.” All his other examples of “conservatives” calling for censorship are also confused. He’s grasping at straws to support his main meme for explaining reality, viz., everyone is equally committed, prejudiced, and guilty (except for Josh himself whose statements we should take more seriously). It really is true that the Left is responsible for virtually all of the cancel culture which is basically a mechanism to effectively cancel freedom of speech and enforce the “correct” political and ideological views. The Left is also now the main home of anti-Semitism.

    • The Harper’s Letter gets more interesting.
      Left-wing cancel culture warriors are attacking the left-wingers who signed the letter and several have petitioned Harpers to remove their names, because- get this! – they didn’t know people who they disagree with also signed the letter. They can’t actually cancel the signature of the people they don’t like, so they withdraw their names in protest
      Alleged opponents of cancel culture canceling themselves because they cannot engage in cancel culture.
      Conservatives are, of course, delighted with the opportunity to watch liberals parody themselves. Twitchy collected a bunch of the Tweets from those apologizing for and self-canceling their signature.
      https://twitchy.com/brett-3136/2020/07/07/ironic-names-are-dropping-off-letter-decrying-an-intolerance-of-opposing-views-because-of-opposing-views/

      The revolution will be short lived given everyone on one side intends to start the thing by shooting off their own feet.

  10. In response to both James Cross and Matthew R. Marler: Your nitpicking rejection of the front-line studies running contrary to official, political dogma reflects the problems with slavish adherence to the consensus-science that now receives political patronage. This pathological “science” is documented by a number of the articles listed by Dr. Curry. Read them carefully and become informed – don’t let TDS blind you.

    I was disappointed in a minor few of the articles: 1) The “Very good article” is almost unreadable; it may have some good points, but they are buried under jargon; 2) The “Hypothesis” article is absolute nonsense; and 3) The “WIRED” article is nothing more than a left-wing political attack. I wonder if Dr. Curry calling it “good” is sarcasm?

    • Matthew R Marler

      Dave Fair: In response to both James Cross and Matthew R. Marler: Your nitpicking rejection of the front-line studies running contrary to official, political dogma reflects the problems with slavish adherence to the consensus-science that now receives political patronage.

      The (retrospective) chart reviews do not show that the HCQ+ and HCQ- groups are (nearly) equivalent in all other respects; thus they provide little evidence about HCQ itself. That has nothing to do with (conjectured) political patronage. It is as true of the retrospective studies purporting to show that HCQ does not work as of those purporting to show that it does work.

    • Yes, its excellent. We are clearly nearing the end of this epidemic. Now we will bear the real human costs of accelerated deaths due to mass unemployment, delayed screenings, etc. Something is dysfunctional in the Western world.

    • dougbadgero

      I have a significant concern regarding how this will progress from here. By all accounts COVID19 is very serious if it gets into a care home. In Ontario the IFR was about 30% a few weeks ago. There are about 1.5 million people in care homes in the USA. That is nearly 500000 deaths just in care homes, and I am not sure how we keep this out of care homes forever. Or more generally away from the vulnerable forever.

      • Protecting care homes is largely a separate problem from allowing younger and healthier individuals to resume normal social interactions.

      • “Protecting care homes is largely a separate problem from allowing younger and healthier individuals to resume normal social interactions.”

        Who does the care? The same young and healthier individuals who are going to resume normal social interactions.

      • dougbadgero

        The problem is that preventing the progression through the young and healthy makes the protection of the vulnerable more difficult and impractical as the timeline is extended. There is another human cost also. The life expectancy in a care home is less than two years I believe. So what is the plan? Leave these people isolated from their loved ones for what may amount to the rest of their lives?

      • If young people take care of old people, then I may be mistaken but it seems to me that PPE and testing should be focused on those young people.

        This isn’t an easy problem, but treating the entire society as if we all had the same risk as the elderly is not the solution.

        We know that even if young, healthy people get Covid, many of them won’t even know it. Will they spread it? Yes. Good. Let’s get this thing over with.

    • Definitely an optimistic view with new cases hitting early pandemic levels and ICUs filling up in multiple states. Can the deaths be far behind?

      Perhaps a little fewer with better care and younger victims. It looks more logical that instead of a drop off we are more likely to an extended tail with a steady 500-1000 deaths a day for the near future.

      • Don Monfort

        wishful thinking

      • Seems like you mean deaths will follow cases. At some fraction, yes. Meanwhile Western Europe follows the Science and opens things up. They may be leftists, but they aren’t barking mad in this case. How’s my S & P 500 doing? Cha ching.

      • This survey nailed the last couple of employment reports weeks before the official numbers were released by the BLS.
        The US Census Bureau Household Pulse Survey now shows employment has fallen by about 1.3 million cumulatively over the last 2 weeks.
        https://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2020/07/census-household-pulse-survey-shows-349.html
        “This survey asks about Loss in Employment Income, Expected Loss in Employment Income, Food Scarcity, Delayed Medical Care, Housing Insecurity and K-12 Educational Changes.
        The data was collected between June 25 and June 30, 2020.
        > 34.9% of households expect a loss in income over the next 4 weeks.
        > About 10% of households report food scarcity.
        > 41.5% of households report they delayed medical care over the last 4 weeks.
        > 25.9% of households reported they missed last month’s rent or mortgage payment
        > Essentially all households with children are reporting were not being taught in a normal format.

      • Ragnaar,

        Western Europe follows the science and opens thing up because they followed the science and shut things down and got control of the virus. Look at the graphs. At some point the trajectory of cases in the Europe drops while in the US it keeps up near the peak (maybe even increasing now). However, I still suspect that the virus has spoken its last words in Europe either and they will need periodic closings again.

      • It’s young people that ignore social distancing, mask wearing, on and on, and they are not going to die if they get sick. Why just yesterday I was out for some exercise at a local park and there was a large bunch of high school aged youngsters with an adult (possibly a coach), warming up for a close distanced gender inclusive mask free romp in the park. They will all live to a ripe old age.

      • “… because they followed the science and shut things down and got control of the virus. ”

        The places in Europe with the highest death tolls and lowest death tolls had strict lockdowns. Belgium and the UK high, Germany and Denmark low. The places in Europe with high and low death tolls barely had any lockdowns. Sweden high and Finland (which did not lock down) low.
        Globally, nations with the worst death tolls were western nations with strict lockdowns- Belgium and the UK
        Not just Europe either- the current political narrative in the US is that New York (151 dead per 100k residents) and New Jersey (174 dead per 100k) can reopen now because they “got control of the virus” but that awful state of Texas (10 dead per 100k- 17 times less than New Jersey) didn’t lock down properly or control the virus as well as NY and NJ, so it’s obviously dangerous to reopen there.

      • It’s amusing how people use whichever definitions they want so as to confirm their ideological biases.

        Which country does this describe?

        Restaurants closed.

        Schools closed.

        Public places (libraries, theaters) closed.

        Cordoned off heavily hit areas.

        Ban on gatherings of more than 2! people.

      • Jeff,

        The only thing you are pointing out is the timing and course of the virus is controlled by many different variables. New York and New Jersey have high population densities and are hubs for international travel. They got hit early and almost without anyone’s knowledge of the extent (because of testing, remember?). So the lock downs happened after the virus was already widespread. The best they could do was to try to bring the numbers down after the disaster had already happened, which they have done. Texas and Florida in contrast had the virus under control with their lock downs and it was not widespread in their communities. Then they opened up. Now they are at the point of New York and New Jersey in March and it is out of control. The numbers may not peak like NY and NJ because the population is more disperse but we can probably expect there will be a steady stream of deaths likely until their rates come close to NY and NJ.

      • James Cross:

        You can argue Western Europe did a better job. They are opening schools while the bias here is to wait and wring hands.

        If Europe was twice as wise, they are opening schools. Half as wise means open schools here. Our deaths are going down. The party is over. All the guilt of being half as wise is for losers. It’s time to move forward.

        If mistake have been made, cowering is not the answer. Unless you’re a Republican politician.

      • Ragnaar,

        Actually deaths are rising in the early adopters of the Trump approach – Georgia, Florida, Arizona, and Texas. Even talk from Republicans about rolling back some of the opening.

        Since we in the US are essentially following the Sweden experiment, I would expect we would hit about 181,000 deaths before there is a big drop off in the death rate for the first wave. That would be where our rate would hit Sweden’s. But, of course, Sweden itself is expecting a second wave and attribute part of their drop in death rate to seasonal behavior. So when fall comes, I expect the virus will come back for a second dip into the population pool.

      • Ragnaar –

        > You can argue Western Europe did a better job. They are opening schools while the bias here is to wait and wring hands.

        They opened schools after infection rates were down, and were staying down.

        > Our deaths are going down.

        The last few days they have been going up, particularly in the parts of the country which have experienced a dramatic increase jn positive test cases (total number and rate if positivity) – a trend consistent with the dramatic increase in cases with a lag. And deaths are not the only meaningful metric for considering to open schools.

        You should follow the data. We’ll have a better idea in a week or so.

      • Arguing deaths per day are going up is like a climate skeptic arguing it’s colder here, here and here. Deaths per day are going down in the United States. And Western Europe and Canada are opening their schools. Good thing they’re Trump’s and the libertarian’s puppets and have no science.

        If we mistakes were made, that’s not an argument to keep schools closed. This isn’t about science. It’s a negotiation and the left is taking advantage of it. Stepping over the bodies of school children to get Trump out of office. Okay, that was dramatic. However, these children need their normal, as do their parents.

      • Ragnaar –

        > Arguing deaths per day are going up is like a climate skeptic arguing it’s colder here, here and here.

        There is a parallel. In the same sense that the putative “pause” could be part of a significant alteration in trend relative to the longer-term trend, so could the recent increase in deaths. This is particularly significant since there is the recent spike in caess, as well as the vast reduction in deaths in the areas that were most represented in the earlier trend. What you make of this is one thing but I don’t think it’s wise to just ignore the recent increase in deaths

        Deaths per day are going down in the United States. And Western Europe and Canada are opening their schools. Good thing they’re Trump’s and the libertarian’s puppets and have no science relative to three weeks ago when the cases rise. This is not likely just variation around a mean – but a causal mechanism in display.

        > If we mistakes were made, that’s not an argument to keep schools closed.

        The arguments to keep schools close are myriad and compelling. The arguments to open them are likewise compelling.

        > This isn’t about science. It’s a negotiation and the left is taking advantage of it.

        Bith sides are “taking advantage of it.”

        > However, these children need their normal, as do their parents.

        ‘Normal?” you think that opening schools in areas where cases are spiking will be anything resembling ” normal?” Really? Just because they need normal doesn’t mean that normal is a realistic goal at this point.

      • “They got hit early and almost without anyone’s knowledge of the extent (because of testing, remember?). So the lock downs happened after the virus was already widespread. The best they could do was to try to bring the numbers down after the disaster had already happened, which they have done. ”

        What this represents is an argument that Covid spread is inevitable and all you can do is control the speed. There is no evidence New York or New Jersey “brought the numbers down” – in fact it’s plainly obvious the only reason it’s burning out there is because the number of cases was comparatively massive rapidly.
        The claim about lack of testing is getting stranger. The suggestion is testing was much much better in Europe, which means believing the fatality rate for Covid was 16% in Belgium, but only 4% in the US. Why does anyone believe this? The narrative.
        They did 50,000 tests just over this past weekend in my state alone, resulting in 2,711 new cases discovered, and an additional 23 people in the hospital. This is a state of 8.6 million people that is also a national and international tourist destination (Virginia). Virginia is “surging” only in the media. The hospitals are 20% full, seeing a manageable trickle of cases, and yet our science-based (but certainly not political!) governor is contemplating ordering a new round of bankruptcies in order to further slow the current drip that his new lockdown cannot stop. Amazingly, some people disagree with this idea.
        There is also no reason to believe the claim that the virus came later to Texas, Florida and California than New York and direct evidence to the contrary- we know virus was there at least in January with reason to believe December. This is not surprising- Texas, California and Florida have international airports, some of the largest cities in the world, and robust tourism. Which means lockdowns came months after the virus appeared and had minimal impact on the spread in those places while the more likely factors were density, transportation, and rational nursing home policy. Given that Texas didn’t become more dense, less rational or build subways over the last few months, what’s the reason for believing the virus will suddenly behave differently today than it did in early March when people were attending packed indoor plays, movies, sporting events, and large concerts (most of which are still closed in Texas today)?
        The answer to this is also the political “narrative”- which applies exceptions to reality where necessary.
        The theory that must be in play to even think there is such an exception feels impossible on it’s face, until you note that it was openly cheered in the newspaper- there was an exception to the months of raucous late-night Democratic Party street festivals hosted in all these dense cities in the middle of the height of the pandemic. Cities, we’re now told, that are seeing a spike due entirely to the simultaneous reintroduction of quiet outdoor luncheons. Only the luncheons need to be policed.

  11. What a mish mash of double speak. WHO and a group of scientists are at odds over transmission risk but what is the argument about? Or is it poor journalism by Time Magazine. No wonder the public is confused about the risks.

    https://time.com/5863220/airborne-coronavirus-transmission/?amp=true&__twitter_impression=true

  12. Curious George

    “I’m running out of steam on this topic” – most of us are. I like politicians accusing each other for “ignoring science”. What science? Today’s? A week old? The “science” is all over the map. In English: There is no COVID19 treatment science, other than attempts to postpone the spread. At what cost?

    • George –

      > There is no COVID19 treatment science, other than attempts to postpone the spread. At what cost?

      As a very general summary, I think that’s a pretty good description of the state of play. Notwithstanding the fact that therapeutics and treatment methodology do seem to have evolved for the better.

      Only I would add…. “There is no COVID19 treatment science, other than attempts to postpone the spread. At what COST”? [AND AT WHAT BENEFIT]?

      With the answer being we don’t know, and won’t know for a while.

      • An early reading of the cost is 40 million unemployed in the US and 5 trillion added to the debt, to say nothing of the thousands denied treatments for other issues like cancer.

        Just that cost far outweighs the minimal deaths avoided, if any.

      • You have no idea what would havd happened absent the govsemmemt shelter in place orders.

        People were losing their jobs before they were put into place. Economic activity slowed dramatically before they were put into place.

        Absent the SIPs, no loans, no extended unemployment. People would have been fired for choosing health and safety and their caring for their children, without the ability to collect unolukwnr insurance.

        Apparently Sweden had similar economic impact as other Nordic countries and Sweden was MUCH better set up to get through without SIPs than we were – more people could woek from home, they have better social safety nets, fewwe people live in multi-generational households, etc.

        Trump and his administration employed policies to limit spread for a reason. Too bad they did so, so on effectively. But if you want to vote him out of office because of that I won’t stop you.

        It’s really a shame, though, that they didn’t follow the lead of countries like Germany.

      • >> You have no idea what would havd happened absent the govsemmemt shelter in place orders.
        …..Absent the SIPs, no loans, no extended unemployment. People would have been fired for choosing health and safety and their caring for their children, without the ability to collect unolukwnr insurance.<<

        You say that I have no idea, but you appear to think you know! What a hypocrite.

        The knowns are 40 million unemployed and $5 T debt and hundreds of thousands or more treatments delayed.

        The quarantine orders were never expected to reduce deaths, merely flatten the curve, and that appears to be correct. But at what cost did we save ZERO lives?? AND put many more in danger!

      • > You say that I have no idea, but you appear to think you know!

        No, I don’t know. And I haven’t said that I know.

        On the other hand, you have made definitive statements that ignore obvious, and huge uncertainties.

      • > But at what cost did we save ZERO lives??

        Like that.

      • Do you deny writing:

        >> People would have been fired …<<

        which indicates you think you know with some certainty what would have happened?

        Perhaps I should have been more specific and said: We implemented a plan predicted and intended to save ZERO lives.

      • I should have caveated that.

        I think it is extremely likely that if businesses stayed open and people didn’t come in to work because they were concerned about their safety, people would have been fired… At least it should be considered as a possibility as a differential outcome had their been no SIPs

      • Randomengineer de Leather

        Joshua >>You have no idea what would havd happened absent the govsemmemt shelter in place orders.<<

        Of course I would. Where I live is 75 mi outside Sioux Falls, and there *never* was a shelter in place order in South Dakota. Which according to the shelter-in-place-follow-the-science claimants, ought to by now be knee deep in graves viewable from space. The governor did tell folks to be careful and asked them to physically distance themselves however. Just like Nebraska. The state I live in, Minnesota, has a hefty shelter-in-place thing happening. Still can't get a haircut without a hazmat suit. So if we want to go out to eat or shop or get a haircut or otherwise be normal, we go to Sioux Falls. If we want to go to flea markets, Iowa has plenty. And so on. (In MN, heavens no, the authoritarian putz of a governor forbids all of it, we're all gonna dieeeee….don'tcha know.) In a radius surrounding Sioux falls, which comprises parts of SD, IA, MN, and NE, there never was much happening other than a couple of meat plants being infected and one of the reservations got hit (poor sanitation, crowded living.) Cases otherwise concentrated on the elderly, almost exclusively in care facilities. The number of currently active cases in this radius is a few hundred, and the radius is home to about 400,000 people. Meanwhile SD has a low unemployment rate; MN is quite high. It is clear that the only thing "shelter-in-place" has accomplished is murdering the economy.

        And as a side note, traveling the MN countryside reveals an increasing number of TRUMP signs, probably triple the number seen in 2016, and probably the most GOP candidate signs ever seen in these parts, which is unusual because rural people here are usually pretty quiet and not outwardly political. So cheer up, things are going to improve shortly; I think we can expect a GOP sweep of all 3 branches at this stage.

    • If you mean entirely validated double controlled studies, yes there is not science. However, in the hospital, it certainly appears that use of dexamethasone and remdesivir. along with liberal use of anticoagulation, is producing better results this last month than use of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin two months ago in people who present with what appears to be similar degree of illness.

      Medical practice has always been in large part empirical because even in well-studied treatments, the study population with multiple exclusions does not match the clinical population admitted to the hospital. The majority of practitioners do believe the treatment today is more effective than several months ago.

  13. Don Monfort

    Is Karma of the Wuhan Bat Soup Virus coming home to roost for the CCP thugocracy?

    Rain and floods of Biblical forty days and forty nights magnitude. Wuhan City 11 million inhabitants up to their eyeballs in muddy waters. Downstream 8 million folks in Nanjing and the 25 million in Shanghai wait their turn. Huge Three Gorges Dam built to the standards of corrupt commie one-party thug system is warped and in danger of cataclysmic bursting. Bubonic plague outbreak. Locusts munched their way across India and Pakistan and are arriving hungry to China, in numbers projected to reach 200 trillion. Then there is the humiliation of two U.S. supercarrier task forces cruising the South China Sea. Peace through firepower:

    • The snowflakes may be on the rise, but at least we aren’t China.

    • I see the progeny of the Gang of Four refer to the deformation in the dam as part of its elastic design. An odd choice of words. I’ve always associated elastic design with the waist band in a pair of golf slacks for seniors.

  14. Look at the bright side.
    With just around 1% of the US population infected and based on the latest available data the COVID-19 pandemic has eliminated (132,000 US deaths) x (16.1 tons/per year carbon emissions) = 2,125,200 metric tons of carbon not to mention hundreds of thousands of tons of other toxic effluents. The worst way to fix anthropocentric climate change is to eliminate the people but maybe Nature will absolve us of having to make the tough moral choices. Live with it.

  15. We have a situation in Melbourne Australia where the Govt is forcing a lockdown on people in high rise apartments.
    My concern is that this is just like the treatment of the passengers on the cruise ships who were forced to stay on board, catch the virus and in some cases die.
    Because of the NIMBY effect.
    No-one had the human compassion or decency to remove those at risk from the danger zone to a safe haven.
    I am going to be taking some mild action in this regard, contacting some politicians and writing some letters.
    Not my style which is usually more laissez faire.
    I do not mind the young not at risk people staying in place but the elderly and ill should be removed to a safe place, not locked up in a petri dish of infection catching and dying from the virus
    Any thoughts or suggestions?

    • I think that the effect of the lockdown would depend on the details. If the area has low incidence of infection, the lockdown would be useless. If a high incidence, it may be helpful in terms of decreasing transmission.
      In terms of the residents of the buildings, the likelihood of becoming infected depends crucially on the type of ventilation system in the building, the availability of safe deliveries of goods and services, and the ability to diagnose ill individuals quickly, so that the ill can be appropriately triaged to avoid exposure of the uninfected population as much as possible.

      These decisions are quite complex, and similar to decisions made about seniors in congregate living situations.

      • I understand, I just feel that we know the elderly are up to 100 times more at risk of dying so why not move them somewhere safer?

      • @angech
        But where would you displace these elderly individuals which would be safer and have sufficient infrastructure to deliver resources?
        In U.S. urban areas there is no free housing stock. Manhattan residents going to rural areas during the pandemic often are not welcome as it is.

    • angech

      two routes

      directly contact exactly the right person who is responsible for the decision. Here in the UK it would be the head of the Housing association or the head of housing in our county council. Other countries will have other routes but from what I hear these are state apartments not private ones

      Second route; publicity-naming and shaming via action on social media,, shaming of the officials responsible on their own or their employers twitter feed, pointing out that deaths will occur needlessly etc and contacting the right person at your local Tv and radio station

      Have facts ready.

      tonyb

      • Chief Victorian Health Officer.
        Ok off to computer for my first ever newspaper letter.
        Ta

    • Apartment buildings? The elevators contain a perfectly mixed sample of the air breathed by everyone in the building. The only solution I can see is to wear SCUBA gear in the elevators.

      • Our medical office building has increased filtering in the main system to MIRV-16, decreased recirculation of conditioned air, attempted to create negative pressure in elevator shafts to stimulate clearance in the cars, and utilized individual HEPA units in offices.
        Only two passengers or residential unit per elevator trip, with masking.

  16. If you haven’t seen it, PNAS has a remarkable “preview” of their upcoming effort to erase a peer reviewed study they published last year on race and police shootings because liberals in 2020 find the results inconvenient.
    The results of the study are unsurprising. The Washington Post has been documenting police shootings for several years and the statistics confirm the PNAS study. The Washington Post is also ignoring its own inconvenient discoveries.
    Welcome to the new “science” and media- not only will all studies and data be put through a rigorous political filter, but when leftists flip-flop on an issue past issues of journals will be also be airbrushed to fit the new dogma.
    Since leftists flip-flop daily, perhaps we can have a new fun game of listing the number of times a study has been retracted or denounced and republished and praised.
    But it would be a short-lived game. The authors of the study and all other researchers have been given the message loud and clear- before you study anything much less publish anything, make sure the committee for progressive science has informed you of your conclusions.

    The Wall Street Journal (paywall) has a good editorial on it today and the PNAS preview is here.

    http://blog.pnas.org/2020/06/preview-editorial-scientific-versus-public-debates-a-pnas-case-study/

    • Your analysis here is bizarre. The paper had a major error in its statement of significance. This is not disputed even by the authors. The mistake was picked up and corrected. With this mis-statement corrected, the rest of the paper is considered to be well-supported by the data. That should be the end of the story.

      The fact that exploding heads on both sides of the political divide have chosen wilfully to mis-represent the results – by either ignoring the identification of error or by focusing only on the error and ignoring the rest of the contents of the paper – should not come as a big surprise to anyone given the heat in the USA on racial issues.

      • Matthew R Marler

        kribaez: This is not disputed even by the authors. The mistake was picked up and corrected. With this mis-statement corrected, the rest of the paper is considered to be well-supported by the data. That should be the end of the story.

        Yes. But note that by the standards of the critics, accepted by the authors, there is no evidence that White officers are generally more violent toward Black suspects than White suspects displaying comparable behavior. The famous examples involve unusual degrees of resisting arrest and erratic, drug or alcohol fueled behavior, by Black suspects; if .
        there are comparable cases among White suspects, they don’t get a wide press, afaict.

      • “The paper had a major error in its statement of significance.”
        That’s not true. There was a claim of an error, it was checked and either way you run the analysis- as Matthew notes – the result shows no evidence of white officers being more violent toward black suspects. And that concern was old. The authors recently wanted it pulled because conservatives correctly cited their study and progressives didn’t like the results of the study.
        The study’s discovery was not all that surprising or deeply disputed. Yale published the same finding in 2016 and The Washington Post did an in-depth analysis and tracking of police shootings over the last several years and discovered the same result as well – no evidence of greater violence toward black people, no “epidemic” of police killing unarmed black people.

        Does that excuse what happened to George Floyd? No.
        But it means there isn’t any reason to spout nonsense as a result.

    • Well, jeff has probably suspected for some time that “science” get’s published, or not published, and sometimes retracted based on whether or not it conforms to left loon political correctness.

  17. My new hero, Vernon Coleman, telling it like it is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNTTBQX-HQQ

  18. I think the definitive study on HCQ + Zinc will need to await on a randomized study. Retrospective studies have provided too many misleading results in the past.

    https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04370782

    However, if the theory that it is based on has any merit, then it is likely quercetin + zinc might do as well as HCQ + Zinc.

    • So, we keep doing studies until we never get an answer?

      • If you click the link, the primary results are due by the end of September. I would assume if the study produces early, dramatic positive or negative results there would be a early release of data.

    • James,
      This does look like a credible study in structure and intent. However, the study proposal, which was made in late April, called for recruitment of 750 patients. The last entry, made on May 18th, stated that it was “recruiting”.
      The study is based in New York. Since early June, New York State has been recording a fairly steady 800 – 1000 new cases per day, and delivering 20-30 people to the morgue every day throughout that period. How long does it take then to recruit and randomise 750 patients for early treatment in an outpatient environment?

      With preliminary results promised in September and final results at the end of December, I find it difficult to imagine how this study could be carried out any more slowly – if indeed it is actually proceeding at all.

      • I can’t speak to the speed for sure but some things to consider.

        1- They have to signup people – some may want to be guinea pigs and some may not want to be in the control group.
        2- There are inclusions and exclusions.
        3- They have to monitor for days – some may be in the hospital possibly for extended periods before discharge or death
        4- They have to do this with 750 people
        5- Cases are dropping in New York so the potential pool may be shrinking

  19. Good article in the Atlantic about the lag in deaths. Five possible reasons

    Number 1

    Deaths lag cases—and that might explain almost everything.

    You can’t have a serious discussion about case and death numbers without noting that people die of diseases after they get sick. It follows that there should be a lag between a surge in cases and a surge in deaths. More subtly, there can also be a lag between the date a person dies and the date the death certificate is issued, and another lag before that death is reported to the state and the federal government. As this chart from the COVID Tracking Project shows, the official reporting of a COVID-19 death can lag COVID-19 exposure by up to a month. This suggests that the surge in deaths is coming.

    In Arizona, Florida, and Texas, the death surge is already happening. Since June 7, the seven-day average of deaths in those hot-spot states has increased 69 percent, according to the COVID Tracking Project.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/why-covid-death-rate-down/613945/

    • The problem is that some news sources fail to acknowledge that a lag exists and that to some degree the low death count is related to uncertainties (such as increases in testing or increases in mild/asymptomatic cases being identified); instead they just focus on the increase in casss.

      …while other news sources never mention that the low death rate fails to account for the potential of a lag; they just report on the lowered death counts without mentioning that they see a lagging indicator.

      Everyone’s playing political games.

    • Curious George

      Deaths definitely lag cases – by about 2 weeks. But .. both the number of cases and the number of deaths are only a side show. Until we get either a prevention or a treatment, all we can do is to postpone the inevitable. The final number of cases or deaths are independent of “spikes”.

      • George –

        > Until we get either a prevention or a treatment, all we can do is to postpone the inevitable. The final number of cases or deaths are independent of “spikes”.

        Even if Sweden had zero deaths going forward, how long would it take at the current rates of death in Norway, or Finland, or Denmark for those countries to reach the per capita death numbers if Sweden?

        You can postpone the inevitable for a very, very, very long time. That’s a lot of time to develop treatments or a vaccine.

      • Curious, you are right of course as all the experts agree with you. The problem here is that the collatoral costs are huge from “mitigation” which may really do little to improve the situation in the long term.

      • That the final fatality number is independent of spikes is not a foregone conclusion. One aspect that is difficult to quantify, but likely to be important is the inoculum dose. If there are many infected in a population at a given time in a limited volume, or if there are super sheddders who exhale large doses of live virus, the severity of the illness contracted may differ and could provide a difference in lethality for those contracting the illness. Those with lesser inocula could be able to fend off illness with SARS-CoV-2 naive T-cell cross-reactivity, and initiate antibody response, while those with higher inocula could succumb or even trigger cytokine storm reactions.

      • George –

        I think that 3 or 4 weeks is probably a more reflective lag time – given the time for progression of the disease plus the lag in reporting.

        That said, going from VERY short-term trends we may be seeing a flattening now, after a rise that paralleled the spike in cases. Thsr could reflect that there is a lag combined with mediation from increases in testing/more younger, and asymptomatic people testing positive.

        Obviously, well know more in about a week. Hopefully the plateau continues or the rate of deaths even goes back down. That said, in the other side of the issue, the spike was mostly in a select group of the states and those states are mostly seeing a parallel spike in deaths (without a plateau). The flattening may be almost entirely an artifact of a reduction of deaths in those states thst aren’t spiking in cases.

    • One could argue that surging cases among younger people is a good thing. We are likely headed for herd immunity as the inevitable destination. The sooner we reach it the lower the total cost in terms of well-being will be.

      • Except that young people too are dying or suffering debilitating lung, brain, and kidney damage.

      • Herd immunity is the ONLY way to get past this plague. Those who take the risk of getting the virus by going to bars or whatever are doing us all a favor. They are adults making choices with knowledge of the risks. I am sorry for their fates; I respect their rights and thank them for their service.

      • I think the elderly should do their part too and let themselves be culled from the herd. So whether you are young or old, bigterguy, I would say go for it!

      • A person dying does not contribute to herd immunity, so high risk people, like the elderly, are less likely to be helping. Nevertheless, if they want to expose themselves, we should not dissuade them.

  20. Did a search of the thread and I don’t see it mentioned though I do believe it may have been mentioned in previous discussions… nevertheless – it’s very interesting that blood type may play a role in the severity and/or probability of infection with blood Type O being the most protective.

  21. A recent Nature Briefing contains some information relevant to Nic’s hypothesis about herd immunity:

    “T cell reactivity against SARS-CoV-2 was observed in unexposed people; however, the source and clinical relevance of the reactivity remains unknown. It is speculated that this reflects T cell memory to circulating ‘common cold’ coronaviruses. It will be important to define specificities of these T cells and assess their association with COVID-19 disease severity and vaccine responses.”

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-020-0389-z?utm_source=Nature+Briefing&utm_campaign=0dde152fa9-briefing-dy-20200710&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c9dfd39373-0dde152fa9-43368041

    For those like me who aren’t sure was T-cell [cross] reactivity means, the adaptive immune response begins with the binding of about 10-15 amino acid peptide from degraded viral proteins to a receptor (the Major Histocompatibility Complex MHC) on the surface of T-cells. Recombination of genes within T-cells and selection produces antibodies that tightly bind that peptide AND the intact viral protein. By chance, some antibodies bind the spike protein that is critical for viral entry. These are neutralizing antibodies. Upon re-infection, when the same peptide binds to the MHC, T-cells are activated respond and reproduce without have to go through the genetic recombination and selection process. We now know that peptide from SARS-CoV-2 can bind to and activate T-cells that produce antibodies that recognize coronaviruses that cause the common cold. What this accomplishes is a mystery to me, since those T-cells don’t produce neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 – they would already be providing immunity to CARS-CoV-2.

    As best I can tell, know one knows what cross-reactivity does and whether it is responsible for less severe infections, of asymptomatic infections or reduced transmissibility that could result in herd immunity after fewer infections.

    • If this is true, wouldn’t we expect children who have been exposed to FEWER colds in their lives than older people to be more susceptible to infection? Logic fail!

    • Re: “For those like me who aren’t sure was T-cell [cross] reactivity means”

      1) B cells make antibodies, not T cells.

      2) Somatic hypermutation + positive selection is a feature of B cells, not T cells. It modifies the antibodies they produce [BCR is in the B cell’s plasma membrane, and the antibody is basically a secreted version of the BCR].

      3) MHC class I and class II are not about antibody recognition; antibodies don’t need MHC molecules to recognize antigens. It’s the TCR that needs MHC molecules, not the BCR. For MHC class I, it’s about CD8+ T cells recognizing peptides from virus-infected cells, and then killing those cells. For MHC class II, it’s largely about stimulating CD4+ T cells.

      4) CD4+ T cells can assist in antibody production.

      5) T cell cross-reactivity refers to their TCR recognizing another antigen from another pathogen besides their usual target, when that antigen is presented on MHC class I or II.

      6) Cross-reactivity is not necessarily beneficial. For example, there’s a risk from original antigenic sin [look it up], where the immune system ends up using the wrong response to SARS-CoV-2 because it mistook SARS-CoV-2 for another coronavirus it was exposed to.
      It’s also possible for the cross-reactive T cells to contribute to cytokine storm that exacerbates COVID-19, insofar as T cells stimulate production of inflammatory cytokines. COVID-19 is largely as disease of immunopathogenesis in which the immune system over-reacts with hyper-inflammation. Hence why some of the same drugs that suppress the immune system in other conditions (ex: autoimmune conditions like SLE and rheumatoid arthritis; suppressors like anakinra, tocilizumab, hydroxychloroquine, dexamethasone / methylprednisolone / other steroids, etc.) were tried with COVID-19, with a number of them showing promising results (not HCQ, obviously). So finding the immune system predisposed to react to SARS-CoV-2 by previous coronavirus infections, is not inherently good thing. It does not show one that the person is immune. This has been explained multiple times, yet many people still don’t get it:
      https://judithcurry.com/2020/05/06/covid-discussion-thread-vi/#comment-917332

      7) Lewis is simply wrong on the herd immunity threshold. Anyone who still thinks what he said is plausible, should enroll in an introductory course in immunology and/or epidemiology. Or go to any of the people online with actual degrees in this subject, + ask them if they really think HIT is at 17%. Laughter may ensue.

      ““My guess would be it’s potentially between 40 and 50%,” Pitzer said.
      Lipsitch agrees: “If I had to make a guess, I’d probably put it at about 50%.”
      […]
      “If anything, I’d think the difference is bigger, so that in fact the herd immunity level is probably a bit smaller than 43%,” Britton said.
      […]
      The paper’s 10 authors, who include Gomes and Langwig, estimate that the threshold for naturally acquired herd immunity to COVID-19 could be as low as 20% of the population [see co-author Souto-Maior’s tweet below].
      […]
      Jeffrey Shaman of Columbia University said that 20% herd immunity “is not consistent with other respiratory viruses. It’s not consistent with the flu. So why would it behave differently for one respiratory virus versus another? I don’t get that.”
      Miller added, “I think the herd immunity threshold [for naturally acquired immunity] is less than 60%, but I don’t see clear evidence that any [place] is close to it.””

      https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-tricky-math-of-covid-19-herd-immunity-20200630/

  22. Robert Clark

    Things you need to know about the virus:

    It is only removed from the individual by death or antibodies. It takes 18 days for the antibodies to do it.

    From time of catching the virus, it takes 4 days to build enough virus for the test to show positive.3months.

    Today’s high-test count is what we have been asking for over the last 3 months.

    The results of today’s high-test count will not show until the positive count on the 15th.

  23. –snip–
    “As we are experiencing firsthand, you cannot fight the pandemic with lies and disinformation any more than you can fight it with hate or incitement to hatred,” Merkel said. “The limits of populism and denial of basic truths are being laid bare.”
    –snip–

    Geez. I wonder what she meant by that?

  24. The CDC has updated their IFR estimates to a range of 0.5-0.8%, with a best guess of 0.65%.

    Let’s all watch all those who previously cited the (lower) CDC estimate start flailing away.

    https://t.co/9INZLx4m46?amp=1

    • BTW –

      This paper estimates IFR of 1.45% in NYC.

      https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.27.20141689v1

      • BTW –

        If Nic is correct and HIT is 17%, we’re taking about 365,000 dead, many times that seriously ill with likely long-term health consequences.

        So that’s likely a best case scenario absent breakthrough therapeutics or a vaccine.

        Likely, one day the people who litter these threads with comments scoffing at the seriousness of this virus will look back in shame.

        Ah… Who am I kidding? They’ll just go on hiding from their errors as usual.

        Right Don?

      • Oh, and BTW –

        It just keeps getting worse:

        –snip–
        Findings In this cohort study, the number of deaths due to any cause increased by approximately 122 000 from March 1 to May 30, 2020, which is 28% higher than the reported number of COVID-19 deaths.

        Meaning Official tallies of deaths due to COVID-19 underestimate the full increase in deaths associated with the pandemic in many states.
        –snip–

        https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2767980

      • It’s hard to believe that any reputable news source could possibly print that Covid-19 is 50-100x more deadly than the flu.

        Look around: do you know anyone who has died from Covid-19? Do you even know anyone sick from Covid-19? In my own case, the answer to each question is “no” and “only one,” and that person was asymptomatic. The overall fatality of Covid-19 is 0.05% of the population, which means 5 people per 10,000 population, which means that most of us don’t personally know anyone who has died from this and this is true even in Sweden where they refrained from taking barbaric measures against the population. Yet Covid-19 is supposed to be killing everyone? In hospitals, with no visitors allowed, relatives had no idea what really happened to their loved ones and whether grandma, who had terminal cancer, really did die from Covid. The CARES Act in the US allowed for additional funds for Covid patients, and it’s a good bet that cash-strapped hospitals that cancelled elective surgeries and were largely empty might have been tempted to fudge the numbers.

        This whole thing is a mess, with fear mongers on one side and a sober and reasoned view on another. It smells a lot like CO2-induced climate change: a (debatably) real but minor problem blown up into a catastrophic emergency requiring immediate and drastic action.

        If you listen to the 24/7 fear porn promoted by the media, then that’s what you’ll believe. Don’t listen. Sorry to see National Geographic stoop so low.

        I’m with Ioannidis. And Vernon Coleman.

      • Don132 –

        Here’s the point…

        –snip–
        These cases are not accounted for in the majority of calculations of influenza severity made by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which rely instead on hospitalizations. For the flu, doctors and hospitals are less concerned with mild cases that don’t require major treatment
        –snip–

        At any rate, in which way do you think that Meyerowitz-Katz’s analysis is wrong?

      • Wait –

        I get it now. You think his calculations are wrong because he relies on official death numbers – and there’s a MASSIVE conspiracy going on where hospitals are inflating the death numbers.

        OK. Got it.

      • Don132 –

        > Look around: do you know anyone who has died from Covid-19?

        In the average year, you’d expect around 150,000 Americans to die in four months from cancer.

      • Matthew R Marler

        Joshua: This paper estimates IFR of 1.45% in NYC.

        Thank you for the two links.

        Expect these IFR estimates to continue to vary widely.

      • From the Meyerowitz-Katz paper:

        “The main finding of this research is that there is very high heterogeneity among estimates of IFR for COVID-19 and therefore it is difficult to draw a single conclusion regarding the number. Aggregating the results together provides a point-estimate of 0.75% (0.49-1.01%), but there remains considerable uncertainty about whether this is a reasonable figure or simply a best guess.”

        Or, simply a wild guess based on inadequate data promoted by researchers biased toward “catastrophe.” A lot of people say the IFR is pretty close to a bad flu.

        There are 330 million people in the US. You’ll excuse me if I don’t think even a million deaths is anything terribly alarming. But that’s just me, who prefers to make decisions for myself instead of following government dictates concerning my health, because, you see, this is a very slippery slope. Lockdown during every single wildly-inflated Imperial College forecast, anyone? We could be in lockdown every other year, wouldn’t that be fun to “keep us safe”?

        Are we to become a world of frightened bed-wetters afraid to venture out without our full-body PPE?

      • Don132 +

        > A lot of people say the IFR is pretty close to a bad flu.

        So your counterargument to his analysis of the data is based on what a lot of people say.

        OK. Thanks.

      • No Josh, you know that’s not what I meant, don’t you? But you want to drag this thing on. We could look at the Cambridge Center for Evidence-Based Medicine, for example, for their estimate of IFR. We really don’t know the denominator, do we? And as the CEBM suggested, in past outbreaks the denominator always turns out larger than was earlier supposed: a lot of people turn out to have been infected.

        If you want fear porn, go for it. I’ll have none of it. Take care of yourself, act appropriately, but as far as I’m concerned the government dictates are a terrible precedent for any country aiming to preserve the self-determination of its citizens, but an excellent precedent for any group wishing to undermine the freedom of the people through the back door. Never underestimate power-lust; just because you don’t have it doesn’t mean others don’t. Don’t assume that the people in front of the cameras are the real power behind any country or any organization. Many have found that the best (and safest) way to exercise power is from the background.

        It’s far better to be paranoid (and vigilant) and proved wrong than it is to be complacent and proved wrong.

      • Don132 –

        > We could look at the Cambridge Center for Evidence-Based Medicine,

        Are you taking about the one from March, or is there a one?

        > We really don’t know the denominator, do we?

        No, we don’t. There’s a lot of uncertainty. But apparently you think that no reputable source should report an analysis by an experienced analyst because you dint know anyone who has died from the virus:

        > It’s hard to believe that any reputable news source could possibly print that Covid-19 is 50-100x more deadly than the flu.

        Look around: do you know anyone who has died from Covid-19?

        > And as the CEBM suggested, in past outbreaks the denominator always turns out larger than was earlier supposed: a lot of people turn out to have been infected.

        There are also readings why the IFR might trend up.

        If you want fear porn, go for it.

        I’m asking you for an excitability why the snakes is “fear prorn.” Apparently your answer is because there a vast conspiracy. That may be possible, but didn’t seem very probable to me.

        > I’ll have none of it. Take > care of yourself, act appropriately, but as far as I’m concerned the government dictates are a terrible precedent for any country aiming to preserve the self-determination of its citizens,

        That is a separate issue. Running them together like that looks like you’re reverse engineering from your view on policy to interpret the evidence.

      • “I’m asking you for an excitability why the snakes is “fear prorn.””

        I’d answer that if I could understand what it meant.

        “looks like you’re reverse engineering from your view on policy to interpret the evidence.” That’s an assumption, isn’t it? “Looks like.” Maybe it’s the other way around: my view on policy is derived from the evidence? We could go down a very long list of reasons why our response to Covid makes no sense in terms of public health, so why are we acting the way we are? Why is the government being so heavy-handed with so very little concern for individual liberties and self-determination?

      • Josh, You keep coming up with emotional fear mongering. Let’s say 400,000 do ultimately die. Half of those are going to be very ill already and would have died within a year or two. Excess mortality would be 200,000. Expected mortality in the US is 2.85 million. That’s about 7% excess mortality. That means that cancer and heart disease are much larger causes of excess mortality than covid19.

        Children tend to get emotional at any threat and can’t put it in perspective. Adults as they gain real world experience can quantify risk and make appropriate decisions based on rational analysis.

        There are lots of estimates of IFR for covid19. Your latest one is one of hundreds. In any case, its strongly population dependent.

      • Don132 –

        > That’s an assumption, isn’t it? “Looks like.”

        Well, to me “looks like” means I’m not assuming it. But regardless…

        But yah, it looks to me like you’re strongly opposed to the Trump administration’s policy – of shutting things down and then gradually re-opening in line with specific trends in metrics – and therefore reject a scientist’s analysis without having a real evidence base other than an assessment based on the people you have met and a conspiracy theory.

      • Joshua, you are appealing to what someone here once called “Science!” Yet there are many different opinions regarding what constitutes Covid-19 science-based public policy. I agree with Ioannidis when he warned that we were acting without appropriate data, and that’s even more true today.

        There was never any evidence for a full-blown shutdown; we knew from very early on that the elderly and those with underlying conditions were the vulnerable population, and we had good reason to believe that many of the deaths in Italy which scared us all were counting “with” Covid and not distinguishing that “from” Covid, which should have been done.

        We’ve done huge damage to the economy and to the social fabric, and we fail to recognize the terrible precedent this sets. Are we going to run and hide whenever Ferguson opens his mouth?

        Yes, Covid is very serious in certain populations, but shutting down business and creating fear in the population is also very serious. This disease is NOT serious in the vast majority of the population. We could have handled this as a bad flu, and that really is what many informed scientists were and are saying this is. Why, instead of moving toward an “everybody stay calm, here’s the information” stance, did we instead move into an unwarranted state of panic?

        This is the “new normal” but that phrase frightens me, because I see it as an arbitrary definition based on a series of actions with no solid evidence, spurred forward by constant 24/7 fear-mongering which could instead have been 24/7 calm and reasoned assessment of the facts, without biased reporting. (Bodies piled up in NYC? And this is because of all the Covid deaths and not because cemeteries were short-handed because of Covid fears and cutbacks on burials?)

        Really no need to debate this anymore; you know where I stand and I know where you stand.

      • Don132 –

        > I agree with Ioannidis when he warned that we were acting without appropriate data, and that’s even more true today.

        It’s funny that Ioannidis says that we don’t have good enough data (I agree) but then confidently makes assertions based in crappy data (like using the statistically invalid analysis of poorly collected data to extrapolate from unrepresentative convenience along to project global IFR).

        > There was never any evidence for a full-blown shutdown;

        That’s a matter of opinion. The evidence that we had was of a range of probability for a range of outcomes. In such a case different people assess the proper policy according to their own priorities. I’m sorry for ui that your assessment was in such a minority thst no one followed your preferred policies. That doesn’t ale you wrong. It just makes you a tiny minority and although you want power in disproportion to the numbers – it just doesn’t work out the way you want. That’s part of life.

        > we knew from very early on that the elderly and those with underlying conditions were the vulnerable population, and we had good reason to believe that many of the deaths in Italy which scared us all were counting “with” Covid and not distinguishing that “from” Covid, which should have been done.

        This, as is all too typical unfortunately, ignores rh uncertainties that run in the other direction. Excess deaths suggests that the number of people who die with covid is axruslku undercounted – because there are a lot of people who die of covid without being tested. The evidence points to that number being higher than the number of people who die from other causes (which should be in line with historical prevalence) but who get identified as dying of covid.

        > We’ve done huge damage to the economy and to the social fabric,…

        Huge damage of that sort was going to happen regardless. As an indicator Sweden has had much the same economic impact as other Nordic countries – despite thst it was well situated to take in covid with lewer shelter in place mandates. Things were shutting down prior to tj rmndarws. People where isolating before thar point. We now see places shutting down despite the SIPs being lifted.

        > and we fail to recognize the terrible precedent this sets.

        Agsin, this is your opinion – to which you’re entitled. It isn’t fact. I get that you’re concerned about infringement of rights. I don’t dismiss such concerns, but mixing thst with the risk assessment is problematic.

        > Are we going to run and hide whenever Ferguson opens his mouth?

        the impact of the IC projections was far less than people have been asserting. Google it. Ill supply more if you need it.

        > Yes, Covid is very serious in certain populations, but shutting down business and creating fear in the population is also very serious. Yes, it’s all very serious – but we don’t know the differential effect of different policies.

        > This disease is NOT serious in the vast majority of the population.

        It is serious, if not fatal, for a lot of people across age ranges.

        > We could have handled this as a bad flu,

        I’ve shown you evidence points to it being much worse than a bad flu. You have yet to offer a counter argument that doesn’t rest in an implausible conspiracy theory.

        > and that really is what many informed scientists were and are saying this is.

        Only a tiny minority say that. Doesn’t make it wrong, but it does inform as to probabilities. We’ve had 140k deaths in four months, with many multiples of that number seriously ill with long-term sequelae, with a lot of actions to slow the spread. If you want to argue that in the end the same number will die regardless, only over a longer period, go ahead and make that argument – but downplaying the actual impact just isn’t supported by the evidence. If you want to argue that the impact has less significance than some think, that’s a valid argument as it based on opinion. You’re entitled to your opinion.

        > *Why, instead of moving toward an “everybody stay calm, here’s the information” stance, did we instead move into an unwarranted state of panic?

        That it is a “state of panic” is, again, not an argument if fact, but an opinion of yours. You’re entitled to have your opinion. But a majority of people think that our actions have actually fallen significantly short of what we should have done.

        > This is the “new normal” but that phrase frightens me, because I see it as an arbitrary definition based on a series of actions with no solid evidence, spurred forward by constant 24/7 fear-mongering which could instead have been 24/7 calm and reasoned assessment of the facts, without biased reporting. (Bodies piled up in NYC? And this is because of all the Covid deaths and not because cemeteries were short-handed because of Covid fears and cutbacks on burials?)

        Again, you’re entitled to your opinions.

        > Really no need to debate this anymore; you know where I stand and I know where you stand.

        Perhaps, but your arguments suggest that you don’t know where I stand because you say some things that are obviously in conflict with the evidence.

      • The caped left loon crusader of fear mongering will keep you fellas busy all day and all night. Tells you something about what kind of life he leads in AOC’s dismal district. They have run out of statues to topple.

      • Don –

        What’s this whole thing about me living in AOC’s district. Did you get that from the same place you got your facts to predict 6,000 deaths?

      • Don Monfort

        Don’t worry about it. You’ll remain inconspicuous in AOC’s left loon domain.

      • Joshua, why are you calling our attention to junk-science pieces that say that Covid might be 50-100x more deadly than the flu? That would mean an IFR of 5%-10%, and there’s zero data to support anything close to that.

        This is irresponsible fear-mongering, pure and simple.

        The Meyerowitz-Katz piece has not been reviewed. It could just be another hit piece like the retracted Lancet study: let’s get data anywhere we can that supports our message.

        So let’s hear it: all these horror stories, but how many of us actually know anyone who has died from this terrible disease that’s supposed to be everywhere and killing everyone? Maybe our response to this is a bit overblown and based on 24/7 media coverage, like the junk that National Geographic wants us to swallow. Once the headlines are out that’s what the majority of people hear: my God, National Geographic said 50 times more deadly than the flu! The majority of people never investigate further.

        Propaganda is everywhere, and those who’ve been following the climate science debate know how bad it can be. The reason for this propaganda isn’t to present us with the best science, but to promote a vision and an agenda. What else do you think National Geographic is doing? Informing us of the best available science?

      • Don132 –

        > Joshua, why are you calling our attention to junk-science pieces that say that Covid might be 50-100x more deadly than the flu? That would mean an IFR of 5%-10%, and there’s zero data to support anything close to that.

        No. You can’t just make that extrapolation. Did you read the article? Did you read how the IFR for the seasonal flu is calculated? It isn’t merely that article which explains the complications with the commonly stated figure for the IFR of the seasonal flu. There is much info about there about it.

        The same scientist who explains the complications re the seasonal flu IFR says the IFR for covid is 0.65% (which, as it turns out is in line with the newer “best guess” estimate of the CDC). You may think he’s wrong about that, but there is no logical or mathematical contradiction in his numbers, respectively.

      • Mr. 132 inquires:”Joshua, why are you calling our attention to junk-science pieces that say that Covid might be 50-100x more deadly than the flu?”

        It’s because online anonymous fear mongering is safer than toppling statues, rioting, looting and defacing walls and streets with mindless left loon slogans.

      • OK Joshua, you win. We’re all going to die from Covid and locking down society is the correct approach. Me, I’m moving to Sweden because people there are living fairly normal lives and aren’t running around in fear with masks on. They accept that this is a serious disease but they also accept that life has to go on.

        When I compare life in Sweden to the fear I see every day around me, it makes me sick to see that we’ve come to this.

        It’s not Covid that’s going to wreck us all, it’s the fear and the relentless fear porn that the media is bombarding us with, which is endlessly repeated. Everyone is afraid of everyone else. Masks are required in many stores. I see people driving with masks on! In their cars by themselves. It’s just plain sad.

        I say: stop being afraid. If you’er under 35 you’re going to be fine. Children are going to be fine. Doesn’t that really say it all– our children will be fine? But no, if we say that and act upon it I can guarantee that the media will seize on every little child with any complication, real or imagined, from Covid-19 and shove it in front of our faces 24/7, because we want the fear. It’s just fear porn, and I say stop watching.

  25. Lol.

    I’m asking you for an explanation for why the analysis (by a scientist) is “fear prorn.” Apparently your answer is because there a vast conspiracy. That may be possible, but doesn’t seem very probable to me.

    • Curious George

      A conspiracy is a strong word. Maybe a mass psychosis would be better. My friend went to a Berkeley mayor’s meeting “resist and protect” the day after 2016 election results were published.

      • I dunno. He’s suggesting that there is a mass effect of people (deliberately and for self-serving reasons) mis-classifying people who are dying. There would necessarily have to be cooperation among a very large group. Don132 specifically endorsed a video which quite explicitly made a charge of such conspiratorially-furthered activity at a specific hospital. Not a mass conspiracy, but a conspiracy nonetheless that is consistent with what Don132 has implied is a mass phenomenon.

      • Curious George

        “cooperation among a very large group” – we see it daily and repeatedly. Not just Antifa, but progressives in general, safe spaces which became a cornerstone of university education ..

      • George –

        > we see it daily and repeatedly. Not just Antifa, but progressives in general, safe spaces which became a cornerstone of university education ..

        OK. So people who work in hospital administrations are “progressives” and analogous to Antifa, who unlike “conservatives” cooperate as a group.

        Olay then. Got it. Thanks.

      • George, this is what they do when they don’t have the guts to confront the police, loot and other forms of mayhem and destruction.

  26. This whole saga is rife with politically motivated data fudging which is a major industry nowadays. About the only thing you can place some trust in is excess deaths, a comparison of current death rates with a baseline of past years.

  27. How many re-infections have been documented?

    “a small but growing number”

    This clown has one patient and he knows of a few others. This is irresponsible Chicken Little blabbering. He should turn in his doctor’s badge.

    Are we supposed to roll up in a ball and die for fear of this virus?

    • verytallguy

      “This clown has one patient and he knows of a few others. This is irresponsible Chicken Little blabbering. He should turn in his doctor’s badge.”

      That’s right Don.

      We should keep quiet about discoveries of new information about the virus.

      Rhetoric is more important than facts.

      The Chinese showed us how to do it in Wuhan. Arrest anyone talking about it and cover it up. It went well, I think.

      • This was discussed almost 2 months ago. So it’s ridiculous to act like it was just made up now to scare people:

        “Some related possibilities to consider:

        1) Recurrence of COVID-19: People who recover from COVID-19 might suffer from COVID-19 again, [ex: a mutated form of SARS-CoV-2 that’s more virulent than the strain they were initially exposed to]. That would undermine immunity and increase HIT.
        2) Recurrence of SARS-CoV-2 infection: People who recover from COVID-19 and have no detectable SARS-CoV-2 viral load, might then have their viral load increase again later. If that happens and even if these people were immune, they could still have enough virus to infect vulnerable people, undermining herd immunity and increasing HIT.

        Will be interesting to see how the results below on point 1 are followed up on. Hopefully it will be with a larger sample size to make sure the recurrence phenomenon is real and substantial:

        “Recurrence of COVID-19 after recovery: a case report from Italy
        […]
        After 14 days the patients became afebrile and his respiratory symptoms disappeared.
        […]
        The two nasopharyngeal swabs collected on March 30 and 31 were both negative for SARS-CoV-2 infection. The patient was therefore discharged and encouraged to maintain home quarantine for at least 14 days. The molecular test was also negative at his follow-up visit on April 15, suggesting that the patient was cured from COVID-19. In addition, two serological assays […] revealed the presence of IgM and IgG anti-SARS-CoV-2. However, on April 30, he developed new symptoms, i.e., dyspnea and chest pain. […] Because of his recent clinical history, a SARS-CoV-2 molecular test was performed and proved to be positive. Moreover, serological assay revealed the presence of only IgG anti-SARS-CoV-2. To date, the patient is well, on anticoagulant therapy and does not require O2 supplementation.
        To the best of our knowledge, this is the first published report describing a reactivation of COVID-19 in an apparently cured patient in Italy.”

        Click to access s15010-020-01444-1.pdf

        https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/coronavirus-immunity-reinfection-get-covid-19-twice-sick-spread-relapse-a9400691.html

        Related to point 2, and the unclear evidence on it:

        “COVID-19 and postinfection immunity: Limited evidence, many remaining questions”
        “Does immune privilege result in recovered patients testing positive for COVID-19 again?”
        “Recurrence of positive SARS-CoV-2 RNA in COVID-19: A case report”
        “False‐negative of RT‐PCR and prolonged nucleic acid conversion in COVID‐19: Rather than recurrence”
        Non-peer-reviewed: “Reinfection could not occur in SARS-CoV-2 infected rhesus macaques” (with: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-020-0316-3 )”
        https://judithcurry.com/2020/05/10/why-herd-immunity-to-covid-19-is-reached-much-earlier-than-thought/#comment-917506

      • I agree with Don. This is a terrible article. A single case example without detail to raise a bogeyman fear… which is then used to justify the author’s personal policy stance. On a statistical basis, in the US alone, there should be thousands of patients with similar stories and it does NOT provide evidence of reinfection or reactivation.

        South Korea had several hundred cases of what looked like either reinfections or reactivations. They investigated rigourously and found that, in every instance where they had a positive RT-PCR after a patient had already recovered from a GENUINE confirmed case of COVID-19, the RT-PCR test was picking up remnant viral RNA. The remnant RNA was not live virus; it could not be cultured into active virus, and represented no threat of further transmission. The remaining examples of possible reinfection were found to be numerically well within statistical expectations from previous false positives, given test specificity.

        The VOX article does not report on how many PCR tests were carried out on this single patient, nor their claimed analytic specificity, nor even whether ANY positive RT-PCR test was carried out before the two reported negative tests were carried out. We do know however that there was no serological test, and the write-up suggests that the patient was not hospitalised during his first illness.

        The patient history presented by this VOX article therefore has two possible explanations that do not involve either reinfection or reactivation.

        The first explanation, and the most likely by far, is that the patient did not have COVID-19 previously; instead, he had a cough from a cold or flu virus and perhaps a false-positive on a RT-PCR test, if he was tested at all, since the diagnosis might have been based on symptoms – we don’t know. The two negative tests which were reported would then be genuine negatives. He subsequently did contract COVID-19.

        The second explanation is that he did have COVID-19 previously, and the later positive RT-PCR tests are showing remnant SARS COV2 RNA, but not live virus. The symptoms of the later illness displayed by this patient are then associated with a flu or alternative respiratory infection, even though he is testing positive for COVID-19.

        The reference to the “two patients in New Jersey” is equally dubious. The reference is to a newspaper article which further refers to a youtube video by a pediatrician called Dr Ditcheck. The claim is that Dr Ditcheck’s two patients (within the same family) genuinely had COVID-19, and, after recovery, one of them had donated blood plasma for antibody collection. After an unspecified number of negative RT-PCR tests, they subsequently each tested positive on at least one RT-PCR test. Elsewhere Dr Ditcheck reports that they were reinfected but asymptomatic. There is no indication anywhere that any test has been done to discriminate between viral remnant and live virus.
        Experts in virology have not yet confirmed a single case of reactivation or reinfection. This does not mean that it is not possible. Indeed, with the increasing number of mutations over time, it becomes increasingly likely that some reinfection by a new mutation becomes possible. However, we can also hope that, when and if it does occur, the morbidity of the new strain will be attenuated.
        A question of interest is:- to what end are these two MD’s engaged in public fearmongering based on poorly supported speculation? If they have useful evidence, rather than uninformed guesswork, then they should publish the data – and that does not mean self-promoting articles or youtube videos.

      • You are an hysterical clown. What evidence is there that re-infection is more than a one in a million occurrence? What evidence is there that suspected cases of re-infection aren’t relapses related to previous infection that was not completely cleared? What evidence is there that negative PCR rests were really negative? You are just a blabbering clown witrh nothing substantive to add the discussion. Stop embarrassing yourself.

      • Don,

        You’re coming across all tired and emotional.

        Have a lie down, you’ll feel much better. Then you might even manage a coherent post, just for instance one without insults, name calling or demands to punish professionals for having the temerity to write about their experiences with the disease.

        Whaddaya say? Can you manage that?

      • Matthew R Marler

        Kribaez: South Korea had several hundred cases of what looked like either reinfections or reactivations.

        Reference to a source would be useful. Single case reports are “alerts”, not “bogeymen”.

      • Matthew,
        Here is a soft science report on the Korean data to go with the above reference:-
        https://www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-covid19-reinfection-immune-response
        Just to highlight the difference between an alert and a clown raising bogeyman fears. The data on the single Italian patient presented by Loconsole is an alert. It comes with well presented data, and it is presented with professional decorum in an appropriate letter. The information is directed towards the medical profession and health professionals.
        Compare and contrast that with the anecdotes of these two MDs – no data, no consideration of alternative interpretations, and presented with a megaphone directed towards the public. I am not impressed.

    • Maybe it’s like a Ground Hog virus where you get sick, get well, then get sick again.

      I’m surprised this isn’t on the list of Fauci mistakes that he didn’t tell us about this.

      Not get sick and die. Just go underground. Live like a morlock.

  28. UK-Weather Lass

    Immunity from infection is a very personal thing. Our immune systems are just one part of a very complicated whole that is dealing with ‘large number’ variations throughout the host’s life. An immune system attack may, for all we know, happen many times a day, as it does for those who, for example, have chronic rhinitis where the particular allergies cannot be successfully isolated and identified and so daily anti-histamine is offered as a solution. There are many complications from sensitive immune systems as in thyroid disorders, forms of arthritis etc., etc. Age of course plays a major role in the decline of our immunity but it is still different for different people.

    It seems quite dangerous to lose sight of the personal nature of health and medicine, as may tend to happen too often in these days of statistical overload. It is why I had been concerned to see antigen testing from the start of the pandemic, not several months into it. It is why I wanted to see rigorous test, track and trace public health systems in place globally before SARS-CoV-2 was even announced. But these are high cost investments that tend to get side-lined too easily via complacency or too eager focus on matters elsewhere. My local MP was sympathetic to my view. This is why we have been caught so short and apparently unable to resist panic measures simply to protect our hospitals from inundation and collapse. I remember the earliest warnings (from Medcram for example) that hospitals were not prepared for anything other than ‘normal ‘flu season deaths’, whatever that might mean locally.

    In the UK today we have a health minister claiming we are dealing with ‘hundreds of outbreaks’ a week. That is the position he should have been able to claim from the very start of the outbreak except he couldn’t because he had been told several times and already knew that none of the systems in place were fit for purpose and the only thing that was going to save us was individual immunity. A political class was trying to save its face. We were locked down even if and when we offered a natural barrier to the virus and all because spending money anywhere else but health matters seemed a better idea at the time. This virus has made us look foolish and it really is time to get a better and classier kind of politician engaged in our democracies, those who at least look fit for purpose and not poor imitations of village idiots.

  29. The solution was hiding in plain sight all along:
    Conclusions ( Martin Vincent et al. 2005)

    “Chloroquine, a relatively safe, effective and cheap drug used for treating many human diseases including malaria, amoebiosis and human immunodeficiency virus is effective in inhibiting the infection and spread of SARS CoV in cell culture. The fact that the drug has significant inhibitory antiviral effect when the susceptible cells were treated either prior to or after infection suggests a possible prophylactic and therapeutic use.”

    This means, of course, that Dr. Fauci has known for 15 years that chloroquine and it’s even milder derivative hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) will not only treat a current case of coronavirus (“therapeutic”) but prevent future cases (“prophylactic”). So HCQ functions as both a cure and a vaccine. In other words, it’s a wonder drug for coronavirus. Said Dr. Fauci’s NIH in 2005, “concentrations of 10 μM completely abolished SARS-CoV infection.” Fauci’s researchers add, “chloroquine can effectively reduce the establishment of infection and spread of SARS-CoV.”

    In connection with the SARS outbreak – caused by a coronavirus dubbed SARS- CoV – the NIH researched chloroquine and concluded that it was effective at stopping the SARS coronavirus in its tracks. The COVID-19 bug is likewise a coronavirus, labeled SARS-CoV-2. While not exactly the same virus as SARS-CoV-1, it is genetically related to it, and shares 79% of its genome, as the name SARS-CoV-2 implies. They both use the same host cell receptor, which is what viruses use to gain entry to the cell and infect the victim.
    https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2020/07/11/cq-acts-against-sars-cv-2005/

    • verytallguy

      I suggest you carefully research the meaning of “suggests a possible”.

      Clue: drugs are not approved on the basis of in vitro data.

      • VTG, that is a quote from the 2005 lab research, which was in vitro. Since then we have extensive observations of CQ and HCQ efficacy, both in erasing the virus after infection, and preventing illness in health workers caring for Covid19 patients.
        https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2020/07/07/hcq-proven-first-responder-to-sars-cv2/

      • that is a quote from the 2005 lab research

        Indeed it is, and you quoted it to justify your ridiculous

        Dr. Fauci has known for 15 years that chloroquine and it’s even milder derivative hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) will not only treat a current case of coronavirus (“therapeutic”) but prevent future cases (“prophylactic”).

        Or are you now withdrawing that ludicrous smear?

      • VTG, you whistled past all of the evidence from frontline doctors treating patients with HCQ or CQ. There is also Fauci’s early acknowledgement of HCQ in March 2020

        CHRIS STIGALL:If you’re a doctor listening to me right now and a patient with coronavirus feels like they want to try [Chloroquine] and you’re their doctor, you’re not Anthony Fauci the guy running the coronavirus task force, would you say ‘alright, we’ll give it a whirl’?

        DR. ANTHONY FAUCI: Yeah, of course, particularly if people have no other option. You want to give them hope. In fact, for physicians in this country, these drugs are approved drugs for other reasons. They’re anti-malaria drugs and they’re drugs against certain autoimmune diseases, like lupus. Physicians throughout the country can prescribe that in an off-label way. Which means they can write it for something it was not originally approved for. People do that all the time, and it really is an individual choice between the physician and his or her patient as to whether or not they want to do that.

      • “VTG, you whistled past all of the evidence from frontline doctors treating patients with HCQ or CQ.”

        Nope. I read what you quoted and the frankly ridiculous conclusion you drew from it.

        Are you still standing by your “Dr. Fauci has known for 15 years that chloroquine and it’s even milder derivative hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) will not only treat a current case of coronavirus (“therapeutic”) but prevent future cases (“prophylactic”).”

      • Fauci knew doctors in the field were getting results from HCQ. A survey published Apr. 2, 2020 showed extensive was the treatment.
        The three most commonly prescribed treatments amongst COVID-19 treaters are 56% analgesics, 41% Azithromycin, and 33% Hydroxychloroquine

        Hydroxychloroquine usage amongst COVID-19 treaters is 72% in Spain, 49% in Italy, 41% in Brazil, 39% in Mexico, 28% in France, 23% in the U.S., 17% in Germany, 16% in Canada, 13% in the UK and 7% in Japan

        Hydroxychloroquine was overall chosen as the most effective therapy amongst COVID-19 treaters from a list of 15 options (37% of COVID-19 treaters) 75% in Spain, 53% Italy, 44% in China, 43% in Brazil, 29% in France, 23% in the U.S. and 13% in the U.K.

        The two most common treatment regimens for Hydroxychloroquine were:
        (38%) 400mg twice daily on day one; 400 mg daily for five days
        (26%) 400mg twice daily on day one; 200mg twice daily for four days

        Outside the U.S., Hydroxychloroquine was equally used for diagnosed patients with mild to severe symptoms whereas in the U.S. it was most commonly used for high risk diagnosed patients

        Globally, 19% of physicians prescribed or have seen Hydroxychloroquine prophylactically used for high risk patients, and 8% for low risk patients

        Fauci could have moved for approval or otherwise endorsed what worked for patients. Instead his inaction protected himself, left the liabilities to individual physicians, and BTW discouraged use of a medicine threatening beg pharma profits. Deplorable,

      • “Globally, 19% of physicians prescribed or have seen Hydroxychloroquine prophylactically used for high risk patients, and 8% for low risk patients.”

        So it’s really a small minority of doctors and maybe even fewer that have prescribed it. That makes sense.

      • Ron,

        You seem to be changing the subject again. I’m still on your original post.

        Do you still stand by your

        Dr. Fauci has known for 15 years that chloroquine and it’s even milder derivative hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) will not only treat a current case of coronavirus (“therapeutic”) but prevent future cases (“prophylactic”).

        It’s almost like you’re deliberately avoiding the question.

      • VTG, your snark and intransigence are noted. I leave you to them.

      • Ron Clutz: VTG, your snark and intransigence are noted.

        You made a false claim about Dr Fauci, that he has known for 15 years that HCQ is effective in SARS CoV-2 infections. All he “has known” is that it worked in vitro. Whether it works in vivo is still not known, though Fauci admitted that it might work, especially to give “hope”. By a wide margin, most compounds that work in vitro do not work in vivo.

      • verytallguy

        Avoiding the question it is then Ron.

        Unsurprising.

    • For anyone else still obsessed with HCQ

      https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/06/three-big-studies-dim-hopes-hydroxychloroquine-can-treat-or-prevent-covid-19

      And subsequently

      https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/global-research-on-novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov/solidarity-clinical-trial-for-covid-19-treatments

      It’s always possible evidence will emerge to support use in some other setting (pre exposure prophylaxis looking like the last hope), or over turn these results. It’s impossible to be definitive, but it now seems very unlikely it will be any kind of game changer.

      • Don Monfort

        The left loon TDS clowns are obsessed with HCQ, cause Bad Orange Man “touted” it. He also “touted” Remdesivir. So far, he’s at least 50-50, with Remdesivir allegedly proven and the jury still out on HCQ, which was the treatment of choice in many countries and still is in several. But clowns will be clowns.

      • Don Monfort

        That Recovery trial should have been called the Funerary trial. How does the NHS manage to bury such a high percentage of COVID patients?

      • Don Monfort

        Meanwhile, on the ground:

      • Don Monfort

        Click on the chart for the full picture.

      • verytallguy

        The left loon TDS clowns are obsessed with HCQ

        Don, you are funny.

        You’ve spent weeks touting HDQ here, entirely oblivious to the evidence.

      • verytallguy: https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/global-research-on-novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov/solidarity-clinical-trial-for-covid-19-treatments

        Thank you for the link. Update July 6 somewhat discouraging. Paraphrasing, [safety issues raised, but no effect on mortality. preparing results for publication.]

        Don Monfort: The left loon TDS clowns are obsessed with HCQ,

        Pro- and anti-Trump folks are interested, but VTG’s post has nothing to do with TDS.

      • Don Monfort

        I have defended HCQ against the lies about it being deadly. It ain’t. that has been proven by all the studies reported. I have stated the fact that HCQ has been widely used against COVID by medical professionals making treatment decisions. I have stated that the jury is still out. Rabid clowns who have from the day Trump “touted” it as possibly useful against the virus are just agin’ it, because of TDS. What other reason could there be for such determined vicious opposition to its use?

        It would be interesting to hear mattie tell us why he has absolved verytrollguy of TDS. Anybody with an ounce of sense can see the gratuitously kibitzing ozzie clown is definitely infected with the TDS.

      • verytallguy

        Don,

        gratuitously kibitzing ozzie clown

        That lie down Don, I think you really need it.

        See if you can manage an insult free post afterwards. Bonus points for factual accuracy. Super extra points if you can lose your HDQ obsession.

        But right now, a darkened room and some rest is advised. For your own good.

      • Don Monfort

        The left loon TDS clown crowd have prayed that HCQ would fail from the minute POTUS Trump said he was hopeful it would help fight a deadly novel pandemic virus with no known effective treatment. These are not nice or even rational people.

      • verytallguy

        C’mon, Don, you’re better than this.

        Politicians touting unproven treatments was never a smart thing to do.

        You know it.

        It’s time to stop flogging this particular equine corpse.

      • VTG shows up and the conversation goes to repetition and snark. Not surprising for an activist non-scientist who tries to do anonymous concensus enforcement on the internet.

        It will take years to determine if HCQ works and if so what the best regimen is. This was true of every other medication in history. This issue has been politicized so strongly, it makes me think Lefties are losing their minds. No matter what Trump says, the woke left says its dangerous to say that.

        Kind of like the thousand health care professionals who signed a statement saying that spreading the virus with demonstrations and riots was OK because social justice was imperative. But anti-lockdown protests were examples of criminal negligence. I am genuinely concerned that 30% of the West is descending into insanity.

        https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-ideological-corruption-of-science-11594572501?mod=hp_opin_pos_1

        It appears that the deterioration of science is continuing to get worse too as it gets more and more political.

      • verytallguy

        dpy,

        Great to have your informative technical comment again.

        I’ve got to say this doesn’t match up with the facts

        It will take years to determine if HCQ works…

        We would already know now if HCQ works in the settings tested by SOLIDARITY and RECOVERY.

        It doesn’t.

        Some other setting may be found where there is efficacy, but it’s taken just a few weeks to show lack of effect in these settings.

      • Don Monfort: It would be interesting to hear mattie tell us why he has absolved verytrollguy of TDS

        There was no evidence in that post. If you have evidence, post it.

  30. So, let’s sum up:

    -In the UK Recovery trial, and in WHO Solidarity trials, HCQ is used in a non-therapeutic, toxic and potentially lethal dose.
    -HCQ is furthermore being given, in clinical trials, too late in the disease course to determine its value against SARS-CoV-2.
    -Collection of limited safety data in the Solidarity trials serves to protect trial investigators and sponsors from disclosures of expected adverse drug effects, including death.
    -It appears that WHO has tried to hide information on the hydroxychloroquine doses used in its Solidarity trial. Fortunately, the information is discoverable from registries of its national trials.

    The conclusions to be drawn are frightening:

    a) WHO and other national health agencies, universities and charities have conducted large clinical trials that were designed so hydroxychloroquine would fail to show benefit in the treatment of Covid-19, perhaps to advantage much more expensive competitors and vaccines in development.

    b) In so doing, these agencies and charities have de facto conspired to increase the number of deaths in these trials.

    c) In so doing, they have conspired to deprive billions of people from potentially benefiting from a safe and inexpensive drug, when used properly, during a major pandemic. This might contribute to prolongation of the pandemic, massive economic losses and many increased cases and deaths.

    • Ron,

      Good summary.

      As I’ve said many times, I find it astounding that some sort of trial of the Zelenko protocol wasn’t started immediately in light of the claims made for that protocol. We had absolutely nothing to lose.

      I would extend the implications of all this and say the “they” want people frightened and sick and dying. When we’re all on our knees it’ll be much easier to makes us obedient servants of whatever new drugs and vaccines they’ll want to shove down our throats, not to mention the new world order of track and trace they have waiting in the wings. No more pesky yellow vest protests! In fact, we’ll be begging for salvation, and we won’t care at all if we remain socially distanced and masked. We’ll want to “stay safe” and have become utter cowards, taking the destruction of our economy and of our social lives in stride because the authorities have told us that we need to stay safe above all. We’ve forgotten what we fought two world wars for.

      This is psychological warfare on the people of the world. The actual threat is minimal and can be handled if we actually cared to have people treated properly.

    • > a) WHO and other national health agencies, universities and charities have conducted large clinical trials that were designed so hydroxychloroquine would fail to show benefit in the treatment of Covid-19, perhaps to advantage much more expensive competitors and vaccines in development.

      Fascinating.

    • Ron –

      I’m curious – how many people do you think would have to be involved with this conspiracy to pull it off?

      Obviously, the people designing and those conducting the study would be involved. That’s quite a few. Then there would be all the prescribing doctors going along with the toxic dosages, who were actively participating in the mass murders. And the nurses administering the doses as well. Virtually all the doctors should likely know they were prescribing toxic dosages and prolly quite a few of the nurses as well.

      So that’s a ton of people collaborating in mass murder. At least in the thousands, right?

      And not one has come forward to blow the whistle? Man – either they are being paid a lot for their silence, or the masterminds of this scheme have some powerful leverage over all those people.

      • I’m thinking that’s prolly the reason that hospitals aren’t letting family members into hospitals to visit their loved one. If they were allowed to go in, prolly some family members would realize the mass murder that’s going on and expose this mass murder conspiracy. Maybe Project Veritas can get involved in this and get someone on tape admitting that there’s thousands of people working together to increase the death tool and prolong the virus?

        Just amazing what those lefties will do, right? And just think how they control all the levers of power to get away with something like this! Talk about deep state!

        I’m wondering just how they could pull this off. Lefties just don’t seem smart enough. Do you think maybe they have some help from aliens?

      • de facto Joshua, But we do know who was behind the Lancet debacle

      • How many do you think are involved Ron? Has to be in the thousands, doesn’t it? And not one whistle-blower?

      • Or maybe some kind of brainwashing technique? Like in the Manchurian Candidate?

      • Now, now Joshua, respirer par le nez. No need to go all Lewandowsky on me.

      • Ron –

        Why not answer the question? How many people do you think would have to be involved? It would have to be in the thousands, I would say. And not one comes forward? Doesn’t seem plausible to me.

        Look – if you want to say that the correct mix of medications hasn’t yet been satisfactorily ruled out – that’s one thing. I think there some uncertainty left. Chances don’t look great – but sure there’s still some uncertainty. But you don’t stop there.

        You go on to assert a conspiracy where effectively, there is mass murder going on. Possible? I guess, maybe. Many things are possible. But what is the plausibility?

        Well, seems to me that thousands would have to be involved. And not one would have a conscience. Thst doesn’t seem remotely plausible to me.

        But maybe you have some way of explaining how only a plausible groupknf would be involved.

        Or maybe you have some theory how thousands could be involved in a mass murder without one whistle-blower.

        Hey, I can’t rule out brainwashing and yeah, aliens could explain it.

    • verytallguy

      Ron,

      That is quite some conspiracy theory you’ve got going there. Impressive stuff.

      • I’m with Ron.

        Let’s look at it:

        How was lockdown imposed? A few people decided that it was necessary despite many protests from people like Ioannidis, and no debate.

        Who decided not to test the Zelenko protocol immediately?

        Who decided to send Covid patients into nursing homes despite that we knew that the elderly were the most vulnerable?

        Who in NY State decided that incoming nursing home patients could not be tested for Covid, and sent out that directive?

        Who decided to completely ignore the FLCCC protocol despite a proven record of success?

        Who decided that this was a unique virus that wouldn’t follow Farr’s law? We’d have “exponential growth,” wouldn’t we?

        Who decided that those dying from Covid shouldn’t be distinguished from those dying with Covid?

        Who decided there would be a huge surge and caused makeshift hospitals to be set up all over the world, the vast majority of which went completely unused?

        Who decided that we should listen to Ferguson when he’d been wildly wrong in his past predictions?

        Who decided that Sweden would have huge deaths because they refused to obey the WHO, which at this point is largely controlled by the pharmaceutical industry and Bill Gates, who is himself closely aligned with pharma and Monsanto?

        As far as whistleblowers, we have them. Their names are people like Ioannidis, Dr. John Lee, Dr. David Katz, Dr. Atlas, etc., etc. They tell us this makes no sense. We’re not listening to them, we’re listening to Dr. Fauci who assures us that the virus sets the timetables.

        The mass media is complicit in this, and the vast majority of the media is unwittingly contributing to the confusion. Otherwise how do you explain the fear-mongering that told us that bodies were pilling up in funeral homes in NYC? What they didn’t tell you, because they just read scripts they’d been handed (surprised? and you thought this was all serious “investigation”) is that many funeral homes closed out of fear of Covid and cemeteries either closed outright or else had limited staff for burials, as everyone was afraid of catching the virus that will kill us all, and soon, unless we do exactly as we’re told.

        Now we’re being told that Covid-19 is 50-100 times more deadly than the flu! Wow. The fear mongering never ends, and it won’t.

        As far as Joshua’s question of how would they pull this off, it’s the simplest thing in the world: control the media and you control the people. The vast majority of our media is owned by about six companies. We believe what we hear on “the news,” don’t we? We trust NPR for the truth, right? Who hands the scripts to NPR? Who decides what they will NOT report?

        https://ahrp.org/the-truth-about-the-status-of-covid-19-the-effectiveness-of-hcq-novel-treatment-approaches/

      • Don132 –

        > As far as Joshua’s question of how would they pull this off, it’s the simplest thing in the world: control the media and you control the people.

        How does controlling the media prevent any one of thousands of people involved in the WHO/HCQ mass murder conspiracy from coming forward?

        As for all your questions about who did this? or who did that? …

        My money is on aliens.

      • Joshua,

        It’s Bill Gates, George Soros, and the aliens who are waiting for the pandemic to reach its peak so they can drop the hydroxychloroquine in the water, enslave the human race, and establish a NWE.

      • James –

        Why do you think they’re hiding all that information on UFOs?

        Coincidence? I think not.

      • Wait. Joshua and James think they can laugh at anyone? For believing a drug that works actually does work? This would be the Joshua and James who come from the team that claims months of all night, packed street festivals were perfectly safe (because… Democrats!) but the beach in daytime isn’t (because… Republicans!).
        The same team that mandates I wear a mask now, but told me not to when the body count was well over a thousand a day.
        Rich.

      • Joshua asks,

        “How does controlling the media prevent any one of thousands of people involved in the WHO/HCQ mass murder conspiracy from coming forward?”

        I never claimed that everyone at WHO or in the medical profession knows anything about any conspiracy. Everyone is doing their job, and the vast majority of these people are good, honest people just like you and me.

        You and me and most people are just plain confused by everything related to Covid-19, and yes, I should be in the loony bin but I believe this confusion is deliberate.

        Who knew about the fraudulent Lancet study? Did the peer reviewers know? Did the editors know? You mean to tell me that this study was carefully vetted and then, without any of the background data, numerous physicians immediately saw that it was a junk study that had to be retracted, something the editors and peer reviewers couldn’t perceive?

        Joshua, I hate to break it to you but someone wanted that study published come hell or high water, and the peer reviewers were chosen to be compliant. One day you’ll stop being such a naive believer in the goodness of everyone on the planet (except Trump, of course, who is supposed to be the source of all evil.) Most of us are indeed good people. But some people are real bastards, and some of them have an awful lot of power and control, which they lust after. These people are the real power behind the thrones.

        Except maybe in Sweden, where there are enough good and decent people at the top who have enough respect for their citizens to just say “no” to the WHO. They told WHO to jump in a lake. Good for them.

      • Jeff –

        > For believing a drug that works actually does work?

        That’s a miacharacterization.

        I believe there remains some uncertainty.

        I’m not laughing at people for believing a drug works…

        I disagree with their level of certainty that the drug works – but I’m not even laughing at them for that.

        I’m teasing people for believing things that at highly implausible, based on flimsy evidence, and ignoring due skeptical deligence that would require they at least attempt to control for their own ideological biases.

        Let me ask you… how do you explain that thousands of people would be involved in a mass murder conspiracy without one whistle-blower stepping forward?

      • Joshua,

        Ancient alien theorists suggest that it is not a coincidence and that aliens have been secretly observing and guiding the progress of humanity for thousands of years. Could it be that they knew the Zelenko protocol would interfere with their plans for world domination? How else to explain how science has suppressed its results?

        It’s hard to gauge their full intent but certainly culling the herd of sick and old unproductive workers would be a first step. Trump and Putin may be all that is stopping them from landing in Lafayette Park and seizing the White House.

      • Don132 –

        > I never claimed that everyone at WHO or in the medical profession knows anything about any conspiracy. Everyone is doing their job, and the vast majority of these people are good, honest people just like you and me.

        The accusation is that the studies were designed and carried out with an intent to fraudulently show that HCQ doesn’t work. This plot supposedly revolved around deliberately, and knowingly, administering a toxic dose of HCQ to sick people, in order to prevent a cure for a pandemic form being manifest – resulting in the differential deaths of millions of people would could otherwise be cured from illness or prevented from getting sick. This plot would necessarily have invovled the knowing participation of thousands of people. First many people would supposedly have conspired to commit mass murder in developing the plot. Second, prescribing doctors supposedly would have had to have ignored existing knowledge about the toxicity of the dosage. Next, they plus medical workers administering the medication would have had to have ignored (or been ignorant about) known information about HCQ, plus any of the reports that they were administering toxic doses.

        It doesn’t seem plausible to me that thousands? of people would have conspired in this plot to commit mass murder.

        If you don’t believe that this conspiracy has taken place, then you and I are in agreement. I certainly don’t beleive that it has. One basic issue here is an issue with many conspiracy theories – the implausibility that no one would step forward to whistle-blow.

      • Don132 –

        > One day you’ll stop being such a naive believer in the goodness of everyone on the planet (except Trump, of course, who is supposed to be the source of all evil.)

        This is not even remotely what I believe.

        You might consider what process has taken place to lead you to have such a completely inaccurate conclusion. I suggest that if your answer somehow justifies your inaccurate opinion – such as that the evidence points in that direction – you apply more self-skepticism. Nothing I have ever written in these threads supports a conclusion that I am a believer in the goodness of everyone on the planet except Trump.

      • Joshua,

        Are you disputing that toxic doses of HCQ were being used in clinical trials, in very sick people? If you are, you’re wrong. If you’re not, then there you go: toxic doses were being used.

        Now, someone had to decide to use those doses. So either it’s massive incompetence with doctors failing to understand what a toxic dose might be– really? especially after all the talk about heart problems?– or else it’s akin to the Lancet study: someone wanted those doses used come hell or high water, and no one who questioned this was allowed to participate in the design of the study. Thereafter, no one would bother to question anything, and why should they, since these are supposedly competent doctors who’ve done their homework?

        What was the very first think Dr. Fauci should have done when he heard of the Zelenko protocol? The very first thing would have been to test it, right? That was the very first thing, because you’ll excuse me if I thought we were in a grave emergency so dire that we had to shut down the world economy, and here was this fully qualified doctor saying that he can cure Covid. The very first thing would have been to test it; this is just plain common sense and the decent thing to do, if you care about the American people, and regardless of your opinion of HCQ, which we KNOW has been used safety for decades. Just ask 10 doctors to try it as a very preliminary exploration, for God’s sake. But no, Dr. Fauci put all his energy into discrediting this, exactly as he was told to do, because he’s a good soldier. Not saying Fauci is evil, but I am saying that he ain’t working for the American people, that’s for sure. He’s working for the same people who want to scare the crap out of us.

      • Don,

        This is *great* material!

        He’s working for the same people who want to scare the crap out of us.

        I’d mistakenly assumed it was lizardmen behind all of this, but it’s people, you say?

        Exactly who are these “people” Fauci is working for Don? A list would be great!

        And how much do they pay him? I mean, mass murder can’t be cheap, right?

        And who else is on the payroll?

        I know there’s a lot of questions right there Don, but this is *dynamite*!!!

      • Some right wingers have their quaint conspiracy theories the left loons got their riots, cop hating defund the police, looting, vandalism, subway slashers, knockout game-polar bearing, drive-by target practice on babies in strollers etc. etc. Vote your preference and live with the consequences.

      • Don,

        The protesters can be really awful in Canada. Any idea who they were? Nobody seems to know if they were Nazis or what.

      • Don,

        The protesters can be really awful in Canada. Do we have any idea who they were? Nobody seems to know.

      • Don, Don, Don,

        left loons got their riots, cop hating defund the police, looting, vandalism, subway slashers, knockout game-polar bearing, drive-by target practice on babies in strollers etc. etc.

        What’s with this howling at the moon stuff Don?

        You’re better than this. What happened?

      • VTG, you asked!

        I don’t know who Fauci is working for exactly, but my guess is that it would be multinational drug companies that want to steer us away from cheap remedies– for example the Zelenko protocol– and toward expensive vaccines and our digital immunity certificates, which will likely be tied to other digital information about us.

        I know this sounds like wild conspiracy theory, but we know for certain that the drug companies have been controlling mainstream medicine for quite some time. We have substantial and irrefutable evidence of this. https://ahrp.org/medical-journals-complicit-in-corruption-of-medicine/

        Most people simply can’t believe that things could be so bad, but they fail to understand that good, honest doctors and nurses don’t understand that this is what’s been happening. If they do, then they speak out if they can (without getting fired) and they do indeed speak out, as we have numerous books by doctors saying the exact same thing: medicine has been and is corrupted by the pharmaceutical industries, and it’s getting worse.

        I’ve been saying for quite some time that if you think climate science is bad, look at medical science.

        Dr. Fauci is allied with the pharmaceutical industry; he is among those whom Dr. Kassiser, former editor of the NEJM, has called whores for the industry.

        VTG, you tell me what YOU would have done, if you were in Fauci’s position and some doctor said he had a cure for Covid-19? Would you turn your back on this? Or, as a caring and compassionate person who wants to help people in any way possible, would you at least have gotten off your a** and called Dr. Zelenko? I can guarantee you that he did not, nor did any of his staff.

      • verytallguy

        Don,

        it doesn’t just sound like a wild conspiracy theory, it is a wild conspiracy theory. You’re saying that Fauci is deliberately killing people because of some unspecified benefit from unspecified companies.

        The reality:

        Promising candidates from both on and off patent medicines have been tested.

        Some generics – dexamethasone – have proved effective and also some patented treatments – remdesivir.

        Some generics – HCQ – have proved ineffective to date and also some patented treatments.

        Why you feel the need to construct a conspiracy theory around a particular one of these potential treatments is bizarre. There are many studies still ongoing, doubtless if a positive overall outcome for HCQ emerges, Fauci will be all for it.

      • VTG, you seem to think that medicine is not corrupted and that we’re getting the truth about treatments. A lot of evidence says this is false. https://ahrp.org/medicine-hijacked-books-that-document-the-real-health-care-crisis/

        I’ve read a good number of those books; that’s why I’m a “conspiracy theorist.” That’s why I know the mainstream message is often just selling things that either don’t work or are actually harmful. Not always, but too often.

    • I got something to say too. What a bunch of incompetents. Science failed us. No wonder they want to cancel science. 1000 doctors say it’s Okay to protest.

      It’s also Okay to weaken your electrical grids and raise prices. And scare children and use them as pawns. Good job.

      They’ve got us fighting each other. They are doing fine. President Obama got a lot done. No, he was corrupted too. Bombed and drone striked with the best of them.

      They are taking police from where the people who live there say they are needed. What a stupid idea. That’s how much we are fighting each other.

      See the hierarchy. You are smart. It’s a two party duopoly and we will choose between Trump and Biden. At this time. That’s the hierarchy.

      You can do it.

      • Ragnaar
        Do you agree with this statement?
        “Science is a thought process, technology will change reality and politics is how you rationalize the change.”
        There seems to be more than one way to do science as several science philosophers have demonstrated (Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, Oliver Sacks).
        The overwhelming cause of loss of electricity is due to local transmission failures. Lightning, trees, small animals and transformers are the leading causes. It’s got nothing to do with residential solar systems.
        But we are approaching a tipping point. Now that EV batteries are becoming large enough to store 80-100+ KWh of electricity the age of Vehicle-to-Grid is dawning and this will just accelerate the move to micro(neighborhood) and nano(home) systems.
        https://duckduckgo.com/?q=vehicle-to-grid+v2g+update&t=hk&df=m&ia=web

        We are already living in a era of oppressive policing. I have seen estimates that up to 4% of the US industrial labor are prisoners.
        “Prison labor has been a part of the U.S. economy since at least the late 19th century. Today it’s a multi-billion dollar industry. Incarcerated people do everything from building office furniture and making military equipment, to staffing call centers.
        Companies like Walmart, AT&T, Whole Foods and Victoria’s Secret have all relied on the labor of incarcerated people. And right now there are people in prisons all over the country working for little to no money making hand sanitizer and face masks to help fight COVID-19.”
        I think Biden will be a figure head and the real power will be distributed to down to his cabinet and dept. heads. It looks like the Sanders/Warren brain trust will be mapping out the agenda so I hope there will be a hard shift away from the ultra wealthy who have dominated our policies for decades.

      • Previous post not showing possibility due to a URL.
        Re-post:

        Do you agree with this statement?
        “Science is a thought process, technology will change reality and politics is how you rationalize the change.”
        There seems to be more than one way to do science as several science philosophers have demonstrated (Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, Oliver Sacks).
        The overwhelming cause of loss of electricity is due to local transmission failures. Lightning, trees, small animals and transformers are the leading causes. It’s got nothing to do with residential solar systems.
        But we are approaching a tipping point. Now that EV batteries are becoming large enough to store 80-100+ KWh of electricity the age of Vehicle-to-Grid is dawning and this will just accelerate the move to micro(neighborhood) and nano(home) systems.

        We are already living in a era of oppressive policing. I have seen estimates that up to 4% of the US industrial labor are prisoners.
        “Prison labor has been a part of the U.S. economy since at least the late 19th century. Today it’s a multi-billion dollar industry. Incarcerated people do everything from building office furniture and making military equipment, to staffing call centers.
        Companies like Walmart, AT&T, Whole Foods and Victoria’s Secret have all relied on the labor of incarcerated people. And right now there are people in prisons all over the country working for little to no money making hand sanitizer and face masks to help fight COVID-19.”
        I think Biden will be a figure head and the real power will be distributed to down to his cabinet and dept. heads. It looks like the Sanders/Warren brain trust will be mapping out the agenda so I hope there will be a hard shift away from the ultra wealthy who have dominated our policies for decades.

      • jacksmith4tx

        The grid is not your home or neighborhood. Buy an EV battery for about $6000 and for most of the year you can be off grid if you aren’t North of Iowa. Then replace it every 10 years. My bill with all the stupid green mandate is only about $1000/year now. And I didn’t have to buy any solar panels or the invertor. Or pay someone to hook it up.

        But you aren’t solving any global warming problem. But yes go off grid to the extent you can to make the real grid’s problems worse so the problems appear sooner. Run as fast are you can after California.

        Science is what we are told about climate change and the virus. Know your audience. And canceling science. And it’s racism. Ash heap of history.

        It’s hard to understand how rooftop solar can compete with commercial solar? Reminds me of this. One could buy propane to heat their house. Or one can burn wood in a big deal that transfers its heat using hot water to the home and the home never burns down. Why would one do the latter? They want to prove a point. And they like moving a lot of wood after first acquiring it.

        You can construct a lot of arguments and rationalizations. Coal fired electricity is the most efficient in cost and the most reliable.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backyard_furnace >>> Rooftop Solar.

        And today, I asked a local popular podcaster to stop doing rooftop solar ads.

      • Ragnaar
        Micro grids are going to happen because that’s what technology wants.
        Why is the world switching to 5G? What’s in it for you? Think you can just opt out and keep your old phone? Seen any 3G phones lately?
        You dodged the point I made about the vast majority of grid failures are because of localized interruptions like weather, tree limbs etc.. The last time we had a regional grid failure was because a sudden cold front (weather) froze the intake pipes of our fossil fuel power plants. All thermal power plants (coal, gas, nuclear) depend on huge quantities of surface water that only work if it stays within strict temperature limits (Carnot Cycle). It’s just physics.
        One more item. 07/14/2020 – Researchers at the US National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) have conducted the first global assessment into approaches to end-of-life management for photovoltaic modules.
        PV modules have a 30-year lifespan and the volume of modules that reach the end of their operational lifetime could total 80 million metric tonnes by 2050.

        Looks like solar panel recycling is a business opportunity to me.

        Global warming is a 1st. order effect and most ecosystems can adapt if the rate of change is slow enough. But it’s the second order effects that cause the most damage. We create billions of tons of toxic effluents and disperse them into the environment every year. It adds up.
        We need science to steer technology to support a circular economy.

      • jacksmith4tx:

        At the core of the problem with solar is density. Even nature isn’t that impressive with it. If you look at how little corn is produced per square meter of land under good conditions. Fossil fuels solved that problem by compressing many centuries of solar into a small volume.

        The weak point is the grid. But you can say that about the interwebs too. Or your brain or circulatory system. We are taxing the grid. On the drive to my Dad’s hometown is a new power line moving from wind turbines to Minneapolis. Driven by requirement to have wind turbines.

        The existence of wind turbines, driven by someone demanding them, increases the costs of the grid. Power line failures are because of a lack of money. We need to keep spending money on power lines because we failed to make wind turbines pay for them. Like big boy power plants do.

        The more the grid is bleeped up, the more your micro-grid makes sense. The more the survivalists are proved right. While you can reduce the grid you need, what about the whole system? The remote island solution when you aren’t on a remote island might be questioned. You can always have a back-up diesel generator, or get a small natural gas generator, hooked up to its own grid.

        With density, large cities aren’t very good places for micro-grids. The less stupid answer is commercial solar. As we only have so much money to throw away, we got those instead. Using the existing grid with those paying for it getting a certificate telling them how they are using solar when they really hardly are.

        Build micro-grids in Alaska. It’s a nice science class project. I am all for 25 kilowatt hour batteries in each house that has solar panels. It’s the least they can do to help out the grid we have that poor people rely on.

        Rooftop solar is cream skimming. Leaving the rest of us to deal with the fallout. We may not like the existing grid. But it’s what we have and what we will have for next ten years. And it costs money to change that.

      • Ragnaar
        I know you are locked in to a mind set so nothing I can say will change your mind so my comments are made to inform others who might find them enlightening.
        “At the core of the problem with solar is density.

        Fossil fuels solved that problem by compressing many centuries of solar into a small volume. ”
        You mean millions of years right? At the rate we are extracting and wasting these precious resources it’s criminal. All that made sense prior to the 21st. century, now it’s just head strong entrenched conservatives that have turned it into a political fight. The conversion efficiency of burning fossil fuels is pitiful and doesn’t account for the $$ & energy costs of safely sequestering the toxic byproducts. It’s just stupid.

        Are you watching the exponential growth of solar efficiency? My panels were 240w @ .13% conversion efficiency when they were made in 2011. Today the same size panel pumps out close to 400w @ .21% efficiency and it lasts longer and costs LESS than my old panels. And then there are new designs in development made with cheap perovskite material that can reach up to 35% with some hybrid designs reaching a combined electric/heat efficiency of 85%. (newatlas.com/energy/hybrid-solar-converter-sunlight-heat/).

        “The existence of wind turbines, driven by someone demanding them, increases the costs of the grid. Power line failures are because of a lack of money.” – Prove it. Show me the government & academic reports that support your claims.
        Texas has become one of the biggest producers of renewable energy because it’s cheaper & cleaner. Our politicians committed to building out the renewable energy grid in 2008 and our wholesale cost of electricity has remained stable even as the % of renewable energy has more than doubled. Even the oil and gas drillers in W. Texas are using solar power instead of trucking diesel 100’s of miles to run their rigs.

        And during this pandemic crisis the oil companies have received billions of free tax payer money. Smells like socialism for capitalist.

      • jacksmith4tx:

        “You mean millions of years right?”

        No. Grow centuries worth of plants on an acre. Turn that into oil. I guess and you take up relative density of plant matter compared to fossil fuels. Some quantity of oil equals some number of centuries of plant matter.

        Burn trees to power a steam locomotive. How many centuries of trees are you burning? If you think the plant matter drifted away as it turned into oil, I don’t think so.

        Fossil fuels compress photosynthesis time. They are for people who can’t wait.

        My lineman client went to CA from MN to do the maintenance those fools didn’t do before it all burned. Because CA spent money chasing pipe dreams instead of on trimming trees. It takes money to do that. And you need power lines to send your excess elsewhere and import when renewables are offline.

        The fact that these cost money is summed up by CA’s and Germany’s costs per kilowatt hour.

        At some point we will not need fossil fuels. But now, the renewables alternative can’t replace them.

        Computers followed at density trajectory. Nature obeys the limits of density and works with that. Wind and solar are limited as you can’t make them any denser.

    • Ron Clutz: -HCQ is furthermore being given, in clinical trials, too late in the disease course to determine its value against SARS-CoV-2.

      So far, no one claiming that it works if given early enough has conducted a clinical trial to test their claim. Given the length of time they have been in the spotlight (e.g. Zelenko), this is an unfortunate loss (or willful neglect). What we have are chart reviews and hypotheses of why HCQ didn’t work in the trials.

      That is not a conspiracy, real or de facto. It is like the information-based “invisible hand” of the marketplace.

      • matthew, I respect your reasonable manner. I do think you are not reading widely enough on this issue. For example
        https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2020/07/07/hcq-proven-first-responder-to-sars-cv2/
        On the issue of RCTs as the gold standard, see what Harvard epidemiologist Harvey Risch wrote: The clash in scientific worldviews is that basic and clinical scientists seem to feel that biological and drug-development evidence for medication use in non human and nonoutpatient contexts can be extrapolated to recommendations for outpatient use without benefit of RCT evidence but don’t accept epidemiologic evidence without RCTs, whereas epidemiologists have had career experience with laboratory and animal evidence that did not hold up under epidemiologic study, but do reason by including all types of epidemiologic study designs and derive causal conclusions in the standard way following Hill’s Aspects (26) on the basis of strong totality of evidence, sometimes even without RCT evidence. There are contexts where each approach is valid. However, it is not my point to say that remdesivir has little evidence to support its potential outpatient utility, only efficacy considerations that have not been addressed and that could lead to lack of efficacy under general use, but that HCQ+AZ has been directly studied in actual early high-risk outpatient use with all of its temporal considerations and found empirically to have sufficient epidemiologic evidence for its effective and safe employment that way, and that requiring delay of such general use until availability of additional RCT evidence is
        untenable because of the ongoing and projected continuing mortality.

      • Don Monfort

        It’s really odd that some still don’t know about the plethora and variety of clinical trials for HCQ: early, late, right side up, upside down and backwards. I done posted this about a dozen times:

        https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=covid+19&term=hydroxychloroquine&cntry=&state=&city=&dist=

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

      • Ron Clutz: requiring delay of such general use until availability of additional RCT evidence is
        untenable because of the ongoing and projected continuing mortality.

        I have not advocated “requiring delay”, a la the governors of Nevada and Michigan. My claim is that RCTs are the fastest way to elucidate the truth. about a treatment. Everything else is more susceptible to confounding with other important factors.

  31. I originally came to this website because I thought there were serious discussions among intelligent posters about COVID-19. I find that the majority of posters are starting from a premise and then attempting to cherry-pick their facts. The same mind set that led to “there is not conclusive proof of health risk associated with tobacco use” and of course as I have come to learn this site is about climate change “there is not conclusive proof of significant human caused climate change”. As we all now, within complex systems without control of multiple variables, there will never be conclusive proof. So if that is your standard, you will never learn what the universe has to teach.

    • Don Monfort

      The majority of posters here are not of the mindset that “there is not conclusive proof of health risk associated with tobacco use” or “there is not conclusive proof of significant human caused climate change”. And it’s a dumb human trick to equate risk of tobacco use with climate change.

      How long did it take you to learn that this site is about climate change?

    • “The article The Extent and Consequences of P-Hacking in Science describes p-hacking by saying that it “ occurs when researchers collect or select data or statistical analyses until nonsignificant results become significant.” You can read the article here The Extent and Consequences of P-Hacking in Science…”

      Two wrongs don’t make a right. We are arguing our sides. I wish there were more arguing schools should not open. And that canceling science is Okay. And that renewables are cheaper in the long run. I think what I would like the most is for someone to argue that science is whites oppressing everyone else.

      And has anyone torn down a statue of Newton? Aren’t we sufficiently mad at Albert Einstein.

  32. Geoff Sherrington

    With various global Covid-19 responses now clearer after some months, we can examine the actions of those charged to perform certain acts in response, to manage the threat with the overall aim of maximum longevity.
    It would be a good time to examine three other scenarios, a major volcanic eruption, a large impacting coronal mass ejection and an asteroid hit of an assumed size.
    It is a good time to ask questions such as: Who will manage the response? What tools do they have? How fast can they be mobilised? What is the status of reserves of food, fuel, water? The mdical readiness for widespread sickness? (These are but examples of many questions that need to be addressed, if they have not been.) Geoff S

  33. Didier Raoult testimony to the French National Assembly:-
    http://covexit.com/shock-testimony-of-professor-raoult-at-french-national-assembly/
    His testimony Includes some comment on the toxic dosage levels of HCQ administered during the UK Recovery Trial.

    There does not seem to be any doubt that the UK Recovery trial administered 2400mg HCQ within the first 24 hours to severely ill patients. http://covexit.com/oxford-professor-horby-claims-professor-landray-was-misquoted-france-soir-newspaper-denies-it/
    Previous maximum daily dose was considered to be 1200mg https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10025931/

    France Soir published the video interview to confirm that Horby’s claim that Landray was misquoted – when he made his comments on safe dosage levels – was completely untrue.
    Meanwhile, almost 6 weeks after the headline announcement of the Recovery Trial conclusions regarding HCQ – which was the main basis for closing down the other European Solidarity trials – we are still waiting on the publication of any results supporting the announcement. I do wonder if Drs Horby and Landray are actually frightened to publish their results. I would be very nervous if I were in their position.

    • Interesting’

      > For Professor Raoult, it was essential to test, to test early, and to test on a large scale, like he was able to achieve in Marseille. He insists that testing was key to learn about the new disease. He expressed his disagreement with the decision by the authorities not to generalize testing at an early stage, stressing that the testing capabilities existed in France.

      Good thing we followed his advice, eh?

  34. okhasfgynas https://twitter.com fet

    okhasfgynas https://twitter.com

  35. There’s a pattern by those (denialist?) averting their eyes from scandalous behavior by biased scientists. It was evident a decade ago when the Climategate emails surfaced, first in 2009, a second batch in 2011. The media looked the other way, saying these were noble pure scientists who would never conspire against contrarians (they did and still do), who would never conspire to hide data from scrutiny (they did and still are), never conspire to keep opposing papers from being published (did and still do, see Jacobson 2020 paying legal fees in the attempt. For those who’ve forgotten:

    Climategate. Climategate was a notorious event initiated by leaked emails in 2009 (with a second batch released in 2011) allegedly revealing the deceit and deception practiced by a prominent group of British (Climatic Research Unit or CRU) and American climate researchers (including Michael Mann of Penn State) who promote the theory of CAGW and supply much of the climate and temperature data and reports to the IPCC. The latter gives this group tremendous influence regarding the UN’s climate change agenda.

    “There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre’s blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt’s blog Watts Up With That ), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.

    “But the question which inevitably arises from this systematic refusal to release their data is – what is it that these scientists seem so anxious to hide? The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to ‘adjust’ recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming. This is what Mr McIntyre caught Dr Hansen doing with his GISS temperature record last year (after which Hansen was forced to revise his record), and two further shocking examples have now come to light from Australia and New Zealand.

    “The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods – not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics’ work. It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the pages of IPCC reports.”

    And now we come to Coronagate. Let’s see if there is still room under the carpet to sweep this odious scientific mess.

    • Ron –

      Could you answer my question?

    • verytallguy

      Or mine?

    • Ron –

      > Joshua and VTG, thanks for the classic distraction. Neither of you has engaged with the facts I have already presented. I shall not concern myself with your questions.

      My question was a simple one. It was absolutely engaged with the “facts” that you presented – in that it asked you to address an important consideration for assessing the plausibility for the mass murder conspiracy you are saying has taken place.

      You addressed multiple comments my way without addressing a simple question that I asked you multiple times.

      I have no intent of a “distraction.” I have no reason to “distract” you from anything, and anyway, why would asking you a question “distract” you? Distract you from what? Like I said, you made multiple comments in response to me – why would including and answer to my question be a “distraction.”

      So I’ll ask again – how many people do you suppose would need to be involved in this mass murder conspiracy that you’ve laid out. Do you really think it’s plausible that so many people would be involved in a mass murder conspiracy without one single person stepping forward as a whistle-blower?

    • Ron –

      That’s too bad. Intersting that you wouldn’t answer a simple question as to the plausibility of your mass murder conspiracy theory.

      The main problem with many conspiracy theories is their plausibility – often because the require uniform collaboration among a large group of people.

      Seems to me like your theory has thst problem in spades. Yet you won’t address repeated simple questions about that. Odd, indeed.

    • Can we snort it? I mean don’t we need it in our sinuses and lungs to do any good. Maybe DT will have an idea. Or he could ask his experts how to use it.

  36. Maybe atomizers for the classroom. Mix in some lavender and it will be like a spa treatment. It will be beautiful.

    • Russia is also claiming successful completion of Phase 1 trials – safety and tolerability. They used military volunteers. (You do have to wonder about the incentives).
      There are over 150 claimed vaccines at early test stage at the moment. Very few will get to Phase 2 – efficiency and immunogenicity.
      Phase 3 is a test of whether they actually work as a vaccine in preventing the disease. This will take several thousand volunteers and many months. Even so, there may be co-morbidities which prevent a vaccine from being applied universally.
      Viral mutation can render a vaccine ineffective in any event – which is good for big pharma but bad for anyone who is hoping for a miracle James Tee Kirk solution.
      Cautious optimism is good, but I do not believe that the world can remain with its finger on the pause button while we wait and pray.

    • The problem with what has reported so far is that it is with ages 18-55 whereas the people most vulnerable are > 55. There is a part II that cover ages 56-70 but I haven’t seen any results on that. We also don’t know if the older age group would have more adverse reactions. The other thing we won’t know for months as whether the antibodies persist and continue to be effective. Still the study is good news.

    • France Soir is calling for criminal investigation of the Chief Investigators of the UK Recovery Trial. http://www.francesoir.fr/politique-monde/oxford-recovery-et-solidarity-overdosage-two-clinical-trials-acts-considered

      It is interesting to note that on 7th April, the date of the appearance of the first preprint of the results of the disastrous high-dosage chloroquine tests in Brazil, the WHO called an emergency meeting to discuss dosage levels of chloroquine and HCQ for the Solidarity Trial, where they set the daily dosage at 2 tablets of 250mgs Chloroquine (Phosphate) or 200mgs of HCQ. (See “Informal consultation on the dose of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine for the SOLIDARITY Clinical Trial – 8 April 2020)

      The leader of the Brazil tests, Dr Marcus Lacerda, who is undergoing criminal prosecution, wrote in his defence statement that, when he estimated maximum dosage levels, he had misinterpreted information from some trials in Guandong Province in China. The weights of dosage on which the Chinese had reported referred to the use of Chloroquine Phosphate tablets for which each 16.6 mgs is equilvalent to 10mg Chloroquine base. Lacerda had thought their weights referred to CQ base. He had, in any event, ended up administering 1200mgs daily dose of CQ base – equivalent to 2000 mgs of CQ phosphate tablets each day, or ca 1600 mgs of HCQ tablets. This killed off a significant number of his patient cohort compared to the “low dose” cohort, who were lucky enough to receive about one quarter of this quantity.

      For comparison, the protocol written by Drs Horby and Landray, the Chief Investigators of the UK Recovery Trial, called for 2400 mgs of HCQ in the first 24 hours, 3200 mgs in the first 48 hours, and 800mgs per day thereafter – for a total dosage of 9.6 grams over the course of 10 days. The initial dose exceeded that of the lethal Brazilian study by 50%, and overall, the total quantity prescribed is over 3 times what those physicians who claim success in early treatment have been using for therapeutic treatment of COVID-19.

      I do not agree with Paris Soir that a criminal investigation should be launched, but I do believe that an open investigation is required to obtain some answers from these two learned gentlemen. The UK establishment and the press is strangely silent on the issue up to now.

  37. Second attempt to post this with some bad words removed…

    France Soir is calling for investigation of the Chief Investigators of the UK Recovery Trial. http://www.francesoir.fr/politique-monde/oxford-recovery-et-solidarity-overdosage-two-clinical-trials-acts-considered
    It is interesting to note that on 7th April, the date of the appearance of the first preprint of the results of the disastrous high-dosage Chloroquine (CQ) tests in Brazil, the WHO called an emergency meeting to discuss dosage levels of CQ and HCQ for the Solidarity Trial, where they set the daily dosage at 2 tablets of 250mgs CQ (Phosphate) or 200mgs of HCQ. (See “Informal consultation on the dose of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine for the SOLIDARITY Clinical Trial – 8 April 2020)
    The leader of the Brazil CQ tests, Dr Marcus Lacerda, who is undergoing cr#m#nal prosecution, wrote in his defence statement that, when he estimated maximum dosage levels, he had misinterpreted information from some trials in Guandong Province in China. The weights of dosage on which the Chinese had reported referred to the use of CQ Phosphate tablets for which each 16.6 mgs is equivalent to 10mg CQ base. Lacerda had thought their weights referred to CQ base. He had, in any event, ended up administering 1200mgs daily dose of CQ base – equivalent to 2000 mgs of CQ phosphate tablets each day, or ca 1600 mgs of HCQ tablets. The mortality rate of his high dose victims was significantly higher than that of the “low dose” cohort, whose members were lucky enough to receive only about one quarter of this quantity.
    For comparison, the protocol written by Drs Horby and Landray, the Chief Investigators of the UK Recovery Trial, called for 2400 mgs of HCQ in the first 24 hours, 3200 mgs in the first 48 hours, and 800mgs per day thereafter – for a total dosage of 9.6 grams over the course of 10 days. The initial dose exceeded that of the lethal Brazilian study by 50%, and overall, the total quantity prescribed is over 3 times the amount used by those physicians who claim success in use of HCQ for early treatment of COVID-19.
    I do not agree with Paris Soir that a cr#m#nal investigation should be launched, but I do believe that an open investigation is required to obtain some answers from these two learned gentlemen. The UK establishment and the press are both strangely silent on the issue up to now.

  38. I guess we can expect “better” data on the virus now that the White House is in control of it. The death rate will be close to zero by election day. After all, nobody really dies of COVID-19, do they? That’s a hoax, isn’t it?

    It will just miraculously vanish like summer thunderstorm and life will be normal. Children will be in school. The herd will be immunized. Nothing to see.

    • Trump said we were going to go from 15 to zero in a matter of a few days.

      Well, he was maybe just a tad off…but let’s see what happens. If we go from 3,600,000 to zero in a couple of days I think it might be a bit fishy.

    • But you will never get over the TDS.

  39. Kings College London researchers have found that immunity to covid19 is very short lived, lasting only a matter of days or weeks:

    https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.09.20148429v1

    This finding from Kings College is extremely important. That immunity to covid19 might last such a short time as to be unimportant as a factor in the long term, only serving to perhaps slow infection and transmission rates locally.

    This destroys a big part of the narrative on covid19 that has become established and endlessly repeated in the last half year. It could totally change the landscape in regard to strategies for dealing with the virus.

    – It means that trying to develop a vaccine is a waste of time.

    – It means that the term and concept of “herd immunity” is meaningless in regard to the virus.

    – It means that at best people’s temporary immunity to the virus can damp the spread of the virus but cannot prevent its periodic or yearly recurrence.

    This makes sense, it’s like a cold coronavirus. Immunity does not stop it recurring continually, only damps it’s spread.

  40. Memory T cells induced by previous pathogens can shape the susceptibility to, and
    clinical severity of, subsequent infections1
    . Little is known about the presence of
    pre-existing memory T cells in humans with the potential to recognize SARS-CoV-2.
    Here, we frst studied T cell responses to structural (nucleocapsid protein, NP) and
    non-structural (NSP-7 and NSP13 of ORF1) regions of SARS-CoV-2 in COVID-19
    convalescents (n=36). In all of them we demonstrated the presence of CD4 and CD8
    T cells recognizing multiple regions of the NP protein. We then showed that
    SARS-recovered patients (n=23) still possess long-lasting memory T cells reactive to
    SARS-NP 17 years after the 2003 outbreak, which displayed robust cross-reactivity to
    SARS-CoV-2 NP. Surprisingly, we also frequently detected SARS-CoV-2 specifc T cells
    in individuals with no history of SARS, COVID-19 or contact with SARS/COVID-19
    patients (n=37). SARS-CoV-2 T cells in uninfected donors exhibited a diferent pattern
    of immunodominance, frequently targeting the ORF-1-coded proteins NSP7 and 13 as
    well as the NP structural protein. Epitope characterization of NSP7-specifc T cells
    showed recognition of protein fragments with low homology to “common cold”
    human coronaviruses but conserved amongst animal betacoranaviruses. Thus,
    infection with betacoronaviruses induces multispecifc and long-lasting T cell
    immunity to the structural protein NP. Understanding how pre-existing NP- and ORF-
    1-specifc T cells present in the general population impact susceptibility and
    pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 infection is of paramount importance for the
    management of the current COVID-19 pandemic.

    https://t.co/0zRlmA45MY?amp=1

    Perhaps someone could explain with this finding consistent with the Cell article, why so many people are getting infected?

    • Joshua
      I guess pre-existing T cell immunity from exposure to animal beta coronaviruses could explain why many get the covid19 infection but show little or no symptoms.

      The Nature abstract didn’t mention numerically how prevelant this cross-immunity from beta coronaviruses is, although maybe the paper does.

    • I Derek Lowe’s columns are really good and in a recent one he talked a little about this:

      “We have similar data here in the US: several surveys of IgG antibodies show single-digit seroconversion. You could conclude that we have large numbers of people who have never been exposed – and indeed, the recent upswing in infections in many regions argues that there are plenty of such people out there. But we need to know more. We could have people who look vulnerable but aren’t – perhaps they show no antibodies, but still have a protective T-cell response. Or we could have people who look like they might be protected, but aren’t – perhaps they showed an antibody response many weeks ago that has now declined, and they don’t have protective levels of T-cells to back them up. Across the population, you can use the limited data we have and our limited understanding of it to argue for a uselessly broad range of outcomes. Things could be better than we thought, or worse, getting better or deteriorating in front of our eyes. We just don’t know, and we have to do better at figuring it out.”

      https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/07/07/more-on-t-cells-antibody-levels-and-our-ignorance

      I think that these memory T cells are not like regular T cells but reside in epithelial tissue – like the gut, for example. Since this tissue declines in function with age, it could be that a lot of older people have some memory T cell capability to fight the virus but it is inadequate to do the job.

    • Matthew R Marler

      Joshua: https://t.co/0zRlmA45MY?amp=1

      Thank you for the link.

  41. John Ioannidis Explains His COVID Views
    https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/933977

  42. Latest from Derek Lowe on memory T cell. Just out yesterday trying to explain the papers.

    https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/07/15/new-data-on-t-cells-and-the-coronavirus

  43. Actually, for a virus to survive long-term, it actually wants to be less severe rather than more severe. There is 100 years of virological study that backs that hypothesis up. Although a really virulent virus may wipe out more people initially, from the virus’ point of view, that is not much use if it cannot be spread successfully to more hosts.

    The virus survives best bumbling along in a subclinical way: the immune system is not too bothered, the cells it infects are not too damaged. Life goes on quietly, a bit like an isolated tribe up the Amazon.

    If the virus gets virulent and the immune system is activated, then the virus has to get the hell out and find another host damn quick. That may occur ok in a densely populated city, but may well not happen in a rural outback.

    This is why the majority of viral infections in the majority of people tend to end up being latent ones. They do not cause illness apart from in a small number of cases where something changes.

    Coronavirus is really not that lethal actually and it may well emerge that the virus isolates which survive long-term are less virulent than the initial ones that did a lot of killing.

  44. ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine starts phase iii trials:https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200705/Oxford-COVID-19-vaccine-trials-move-to-stage-3-human-trials.aspx

    just a press release, but another vaccine story worth following.

  45. Why Sweden Succeeded in “Flattening the Curve” and New York Failed
    The reason New York failed to “flatten the curve” and Sweden succeeded probably has little to do with lockdowns.
    https://fee.org/articles/why-sweden-succeeded-in-flattening-the-curve-and-new-york-failed/

  46. The Boulware study did not test the majority of participants after exposure, so we don’t know how many had Covid before exposure: “Because of the lack of availability of diagnostic testing in the United States, the vast majority of the participants, including health care workers, were unable to access testing.” In addition, what protocol are they testing? They’re using 1400 mg of HCQ (800 followed by 600) the first day (which equals a little over 1 gram of “base”) followed by 600 mg daily, and the initial dose is getting close to a lethal dose (about 1.5 grams base.) What’s the logic for the dosing? In the Zelenko protocol, for example, the dosage is 400 mg daily for five days. Whose protocol are they testing; what’s the assumption behind the doses? Since chloroquine and HCQ have a small toxic to therapeutic margin, these dosages may be counterproductive.

    The Skipper paper uses the same dosages and “only 58% of participants received SARS-CoV-2 testing because of severe U.S. testing shortages.” Dosages: “This dose was chosen on the basis of simulations that used previously published pharmacokinetic parameters and were designed to rapidly achieve and maintain a hydroxychloroquine concentration above the estimated half-maximal effective concentration (EC50) for SARS-CoV-2.” OK, but what about doses used in clinical experience, since HCQ has been used by numerous physicians? What about toxicities at those doses? Are we testing a simulation then, instead of clinical claims?

    What happens when you “test” a drug by giving a dose that’s unusually high? What are you trying to accomplish?

    • Don132: OK, but what about doses used in clinical experience, since HCQ has been used by numerous physicians?

      The Skinner simulations were based on published PK data. If the clinical doses were lower, then likely the obtained blood concentration profiles were lower as well, i.e. reliably lower than the half-maximal effective concentration.

      But it is an important question. Why are they not testing for the plasma concentrations of HCQ as well as the virus blood titers? SARS CoV-2 injures many tissues, and ought therefore affect PK of HCQ. Yet nobody has yet reported a concentration at the predicted peak plasma concentration time post-dosing in these COVID-19 studies..

      I referred earlier to possible PK changes induced by the virus, without thinking of the necessity of testing blood concentration. Now it seems like a serious oversight that ought to be addressed in future studies.

    • Don,
      The paper by Skipper et al does have some problems, which makes it very difficult to interpret the results, but I don’t think that dosage is a main one.

      On dosage levels, since 1999, a safe dosage limit of 1200 mgs pd HCQ has generally been accepted, barring contraindications. Against this, the frontend-loading of 1400mgs by Skipper et al does not look outrageous, especially when you take into account that the dosage was set back in March before the results of the lethal Brazilian study became available on 7th April. The worst problem to arise from the dosage levels in the Skipper study seems to have been the fact that 38 patients (ca 20%) did not finish the course of HCQ presumably in part because of GI problems – a known minor secondary effect with high dosage rates of HCQ. It is not obvious that this had any effect on final outcome.

      The study set out to test the benefits of HCQ on its own as an early treatment. On headline numbers, HCQ did produce therapeutic benefits in terms of speed of resolution of symptoms, and number of hospitalizations and deaths. The problem was one of statistical significance. In terms of headline facts, the control group had twice as many hospitalizations and deaths (10 events including 1 death) as the HCQ group (5 events including 1 death). However, this difference between the two groups did not achieve statistical significance, but would have done if the same proportionality had been retained with a larger participant population. But we will never know. An (acknowledged) assumptive error made at the design stage led to an underestimate of the number of participants needed; in consequence, nearly all comparisons suffered from low statistical power outwith any further considerations.

      A further obvious problem with the study relates to the uncertainty in the characterisation of the participant population. Only about one third of the participants (145/420) actually tested positive for COVID-19. The remainder were “probable cases” with varying likelihoods. The deemed (i.e. uncorrected) power of the statistical tests is based on the assumption that the entire participant group was infected to start with. In reality, the uncertainty in allocation of the genuine COVID-19 cases – as drawn from the probable cases – to each of the two groups reduces statistical power in all comparisons made – despite some reasonable endeavours by the authors to test for some aspects of this problem.

      Last but not least, I would question the primary quantitative measure chosen by the authors to test for the rate of resolution of symptoms over 14 days. Once again, the HCQ group did show better characteristics, but, on the statistic chosen by the authors, the difference (just) failed to achieve statistical significance. The authors here have used a test statistic which is arguably not fit for purpose. Having stated that their primary end point measure was intended to be “the change in overall symptom severity over 14 days”, what they have quantified instead is the change in overall symptom severity after 14 days. This latter is not a sensitive measure of rate of resolution of symptoms. Consider a hypothetical situation where everyone in the HCQ group had fully resolved their symptoms within 6 days and everyone in the control group had fully resolved their symptoms within 14 days. The 14-day value for the HCQ group is then zero and the 14-day value for the control group is identically zero. Hence, we would conclude that there was no difference in the rate of resolution of symptoms over 14 days (!!), which would clearly be nonsense.

      A more appropriate statistic is the area under the symptom vs time curve (normalised for initial severity) for each participant, divided by the 14-day period. This measure, which is equivalent to the “time-weighted average level of symptoms over time”, has the same dimension as the author’s measure but would genuinely reflect differences in the rate of resolution of symptoms, which the author’s evaluation at a fixed point in time does not do.

  47. Low dose radiation for COVID-19 patients:
    https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.03.20116988v1

    Really small, unblinded study.

  48. dougbadgero

    Interview Stanford epidemiologist Ioannidis in Medscape.

    https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/933977#vp_6

  49. Public Health England’s exaggerated death statistics are a scandal that has fed fear
    Woefully misleading figures have only made it harder to tackle the pandemic and to get the country moving again
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/07/17/public-health-englands-exaggerated-death-statistics-scandal/

  50. Why coronavirus deaths remain low in the US despite surge in new cases
    Advances in a number of treatments appears to have contained the death rate as records continue to be broken for new infections
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/07/17/coronavirus-deaths-stubbornly-low-us-new-cases-soar/

  51. Now we have a call for a retraction of a paper promoting mask use, signed by numerous scientists. Is this egregiously bad advocacy science, similar to the Lancet retraction, just accidental?

    https://metrics.stanford.edu/PNAS%20retraction%20request%20LoE%20061820

  52. Oxford epidemiologists: suppression strategy is not viable
    https://unherd.com/thepost/oxford-epidemiologists-suppression-strategy-is-not-viable/

  53. Matthew R Marler

    masking of health care workers in the MassGen system reduced SARS CoV-2 acquisition rate of the health care workers:
    https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2768533?utm_source=silverchair&utm_campaign=jama_network&utm_content=covid_weekly_highlights&utm_medium=email

    During the preintervention period, the SARS-CoV-2 positivity rate increased exponentially from 0% to 21.32%, with a weighted mean increase of 1.16% per day and a case doubling time of 3.6 days (95% CI, 3.0-4.5 days). During the intervention period, the positivity rate decreased linearly from 14.65% to 11.46%, with a weighted mean decline of 0.49% per day and a net slope change of 1.65% (95% CI, 1.13%-2.15%; P < .001) more decline per day compared with the preintervention period (Figure).

    • But Rud worked with Fauci!

      • Joshua: But Rud worked with Fauci!

        Please make a point or go away.

      • Stop trying to cancel me! Waaah.

        Rud has said categorically that masks are useless. Don’t remember if he qualified exactly what kind of masks.

        His justification for categorically rejecting evidence otherwise was an appeal to his own authority because he once worked with Fauci.

        Apparently somw folks in the “skept-o*sphere” were sufficiently impressed.

      • Joshua: Stop trying to cancel me!

        I invited you to make a point.

        There is no need to “cancel” you.

  54. Failure to open schools: Better off parents will abandon public schools more than before.

    Walk over the bodies of poor children some more.

    • Much better to put the children through a virus challenge to cull out the weak ones.

      The question I’ve seen parents and teachers asking isn’t when or how the schools open but it is what happens when somebody turns up sick. Do you quarantine:

      1- teacher and the class
      2- teacher, the class, and all the other classes taught by the teacher
      3- all the teachers who used the teacher’s lounge with the teacher and their classes
      4- all the children who used the same restroom

      or

      5- shut the school down again

      • Why don’t we ask Sweden what they did? Children went to school there. I haven’t heard of any problems with that; as is typical of this, by far it’s the the elderly who are affected, and children are very rarely affected. (Do we shut down schools for the flu?)

        I don’t know how Sweden’s children fared but my guess is that if there had been a problem, it would’ve been plastered all over the media.

      • I guess you worship the virus and make it your God. And perform your rituals. Jesus. Life is dangerous. You’re retarding the poor students. Give them a chance.

        Nowhere did I say, and make parents send their children to school. You know what’s best for children. You proved that. Walling off parental choices.

      • James Cross: The question I’ve seen parents and teachers asking isn’t when or how the schools open but it is what happens when somebody turns up sick.

        Back in the days of measles, we quarantined the sick person. Except among the sick and elderly, COVID-19 has about the infectiousness and lethality of measles, so start there.

      • NBC News – hardly a left-wing outfit – asked five medical specialists about going back to school. All five said to reopen the schools, all five said they would send their children to school without hesitation. 100% of them.
        https://www.nbcnews.com/health/kids-health/back-school-what-doctors-say-about-children-covid-19-n1233550
        But, wrong narrative, so now for purely political reasons you’ll go find six medical specialists to say the opposite and, no doubt, someone is lining up pundits and academics to attack these five publicly so that they never, ever, dare to say something on television that is inconvenient to the political left.
        And then you’ll say “trust the experts!”
        This is a personal issue for me- I have three school-age children and my wife is an assistant teacher. We’d actually like to know how safe it is to go to school. In today’s political climate, it’s entirely possible that actual science says it is safe, but “science as currently practiced” says it isn’t. At least until November, when nobody will be surprised in the least that going to school was, obviously, always safe.

      • I’m just repeating what I’ve heard actual parents and teachers asking. Even if the children are relatively safe, there are a good number of older teachers who could be vulnerable to complications. You need the teachers for sending children to school to make any sense. Most schools where I live are starting remotely just as they ended last year.

        Jeff, I’m not seeing in that link where five doctors said anything. I saw a quote from a Dr. Patel about no hesitation but I also saw a lot of nuance about moving desks apart and reducing class sizes which would make sense where doable but not doable everywhere.

        Everybody who wants to point to Sweden – let’s remember we are not Sweden. We don’t have health care system like Sweden. We don’t have an economy like Sweden. You guys who like Sweden so much I’m guessing you’re on board also with the taxes and everything, right?

      • Sweden: we aren’t Sweden, but much of the country has a population density of Sweden. We have many, many cities, for example, that have a density equal to, or below that, of Stockholm.

        Sweden has demonstrated an important point, and that is that to all appearances, at this point Sweden looks like they did it right. The course of the disease was similar to other countries, and the pattern of deaths among the elderly– and not among the young, who were not quarantined in Sweden– is exactly similar to the experiences of other countries. Most importantly, Sweden did it and preserved individual freedoms to a degree that supposedly democracy-loving countries have failed miserably to do.

      • Sweden closed secondary schools.

        They left others open but apparently Sweden failed to capture any data so it is hard to know how everything worked out. I guess nobody can second guess results if you don’t really know what the results are.

        “However, a scan of Swedish newspapers makes clear that school outbreaks have occurred. In the town of Skellefteå, a teacher died and 18 of 76 staff tested positive at a school with about 500 students in preschool through ninth grade. The school closed for 2 weeks because so many staff were sick, but students were not tested for the virus. In Uppsala, staff protested when school officials, citing patient privacy rules, declined to notify families or staff that a teacher had tested positive. No contact tracing was done at the school. At least two staff members at other schools have died, but those schools remained open and no one attempted to trace the spread of the disease there. When asked about these cases, Ludvigsson said he was unaware of them. He did not respond to a query about whether he would amend the review article to include them.”

        https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/how-sweden-wasted-rare-opportunity-study-coronavirus-schools

  55. Don Monfort

    A possibly virus ending strategy using a cheap, quick and dirty antigen test to detect likely spreaders:

  56. This could be good:

    Click to access 200720-Synairgen-announces-positive-results-from-trial-of-SNG001-in-hospitalised-COVID-19-patients.pdf

    “-Patients who received SNG001 had a 79% lower risk of developing severe disease compared to placebo”

    It’s an inhaled immunotherapy treatment with interferon beta. Strong results in a small phase II trial of 101 patients. Three patients in the placebo group died, none in the treatment arm.

    Synairgen stock price up 420% today.

    • Don Monfort: This could be good:

      Thank you for the link.

    • Don Monfort

      They have another arm of the reported trial underway:

      Click to access 200618-Synairgen-home-setting-trial-expansion-final.pdf

      I believe I will start buying the stock. It reached 224 GBp today and ended at 190. Market cap of 284M. Interferon beta drugs for MS $5.5 billion market annually. $1,300 per 30 mcg vial.

      The potential of the drug is large. Indications are that it could be effective in treating a variety of viral infections that the Red Chinese and WHO might throw at us.

      I expect them to get a lot of support from UK drug authority and approval for emergency use, sooner rather than later.

      Could be scooped up by major pharma, sooner rather than later.

  57. Unfortunate:

    –snip–
    A peer review of Raoult’s original study deemed “irresponsible”
    A Dutch health organisation, ISAC, asked Frits Rosendaal to conduct a peer review of Professor Raoult’s original study. Rosendaal is a professor of epidemiology, hospital director and winner of the Spinoza prize, the most distinguished scientific prize in Holland.

    As reported in Le Parisien, he listed a ten-point critique on the methodology used in Raoult’s study. For example, trials are usually conducted for a minimum of 14 days; Raoult used 6 days and a control group wasn’t used.

    Rosendaal claimed that “this study suffers from major methodological shortcomings which make it almost, if not completely, uninformative.”
    –snip–

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexledsom/2020/07/19/hydroxychloroquine-europe-turns-away-from-doctor-who-championed-drug-with-irresponsible-study/#21b746c9f912

    • Joshua, you have not understood that any study can be taken apart, any study can be found to have committed a crime if we look hard enough.

      Sometimes the purpose of critiques is to squash views we don’t like, not to uncover truth. Sometimes there’s an agenda behind a study or behind a critique. The recent Lancet retraction is an example of a study with an agenda, and it wasn’t to find the truth.

      This sounds a lot like the recent media coverage of Sweden that’s trying to convince us that the Swedish way was a failure, yet the trajectory of disease in Sweden is exactly the same as the trajectory elsewhere, and Ferguson’s model failed miserably there, too. The media wants us to believe otherwise.

      • Don132 –

        > yet the trajectory of disease in Sweden is exactly the same as the trajectory elsewhere,

        ? Sweden’s death rate is many multiples of the most comparable countries. It would take years or decsades at current rates of death, even if the deaths in Sweden stop right now, for Norway or Finland or Denmark to reach the same death rate.

      • The trajectory of deaths is exactly the same as other countries. Deaths rise then fall. There is no exponential rise, no continuously escalating deaths– as predicted by that fraud, Ferguson. Sweden has fewer deaths per population than Italy, Spain, the UK, and Belgium. It has a percentage of the population dead from Covid (0.05%) that’s similar to the US (0.04%.)

        But the huge advantage is that Sweden preserved some semblance of self-determination and freedom for its people. Other countries took human rights and self-determination and threw them in the dust bin.

        Sad that we care so much about preserving every last life but so little about preserving every last freedom. What will we do when the next bad flu comes around? Lockdown? Is that the “new normal” standard of treatment?

      • Don132 –

        Clearly, the Nordic countries are the most comparable to Sweden w/r/t important structural advantages that would impact the rate of deaths – such as comprehensiveness of social safety net, ability to work from home, population density, prevalence of single-person households, prevalence of multi-generational households,, baseline health status (such as comorbidities), baseline health habits, timing of first cases (related to time to prepare), degree of travel timo/from hotspots such as China and Lombardy, relatedly, proximity to the hotspot of Lombardy, xloasness of families, mean age, social norms of social distancing in typical settings (personal space), etc. It makes the most sense to compare Sweden to
        the most similar countries, and those counties most similar have multiples fewer deaths per capita.

        > But the huge advantage is that Sweden preserved some semblance of self-determination and freedom for its people.

        Yes, that is another advantage. The citizens of Sweden have a relatively high sense of social responsibility. And so add that to the reasons why it would make sense for Sweden to follow the path it too, but it wouldn’t make sense for other countries which ain’t share all of those attributes I just listed to follow a similar path.

        > Other countries took human rights and self-determination and threw them in the dust bin.

        Thus is a self-centered opinion, which assumes that you should determine how the government should act with respect to ensuring the rights and welfare of its citizens, as opposed to governments making decisions in line with the opinions of the plurality of its citizens.

        There is a reason why zero countries without the structural advantages of Sweden have followed your prescribed path, and precious few who have similar advantages have followed your preferred path. The reason is because your view is consistent with only a tiny minority. Part of being an adult means that you don’t get everything that you want in life. Sometimes, when you live in a country with a representative system of government, the government will act in ways you don’t like. I know you think that a powerful minority should be determining policy – but sometimes that’s just now how things work out.

      • “Part of being an adult means that you don’t get everything that you want in life.”

        Stop talking to me as if I’ve never suffered hardships and I’m a two-year-old. Stop talking to me as if I never went to graduate school and don’t understand how government works and what freedom means. Stop talking to me like I’m “self-centered.” You have no idea who I am so stop making your stupid assumptions.

        You might try to elevate the conservation instead of sticking to such demeaning talking points.

        Piss off.

      • Don132 –

        > Stop talking to me as if I’ve never suffered hardships and I’m a two-year-old. Stop talking to me as if I never went to graduate school and don’t understand how government works and what freedom means.

        That’s fair. I apologize.

        > . Stop talking to me like I’m “self-centered.”

        But what you are arguing absolutely is self-centered. You want the government to act in what you consider to be your best interests, despite that your opinion about what is best is in a distinct minority.

        There’s no reason you shouldn’t argue for what you believe. But your argument that you’re arguing for “freedom” is inherently self-centered, as others have the right to have the government act in what they feel is their best interest as well.

      • The government should give us accurate information on health issues and allow us to make our own decisions. It may not be perfect but it helps to prevent the abuse of power in the name of “emergency.”

        I see the actions of most governments regarding Covid as terrible abuses of power. Worse, these actions set precedents for future similar actions.

        Covid-19 never warranted the alarm attributed to it, spurned on by Ferguson’s completely bogus projections. Yet look who the media paraded in front of us, despite that his incompetence was well-known! What a coincidence.

        Those under 35 are largely immune to Covid (and we knew this) yet we decided to lock down everyone and in doing so we destroyed social life and livelihoods and harmed those at the bottom of the economic ladder the most, so that there have been very long lines here waiting for food handouts. The poorest of us are confined to small apartments in run-down neighborhoods without nice homes and good books and food to comfort us (I’m one of the fortunate ones with a nice home.) What are the consequences of that? But OK we let them out to protest BLM and vent. What a coincidence, and what nice timing. Think they’d have been so understanding if we’d been protesting lockdown instead?

  58. another try at estimating seroprevalence of antibodies to SARS CoV -2 in parts of the US:
    https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2768834?guestAccessKey=62b13c9a-6a7c-4202-a1f9-fb18d51948ea&utm_source=silverchair&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=article_alert-jamainternalmedicine&utm_content=olf&utm_term=072120

    Design, Setting, and Participants This cross-sectional study performed serologic testing on a convenience sample of residual sera obtained from persons of all ages. The serum was collected from March 23 through May 12, 2020, for routine clinical testing by 2 commercial laboratory companies. Sites of collection were San Francisco Bay area, California; Connecticut; south Florida; Louisiana; Minneapolis-St Paul-St Cloud metro area, Minnesota; Missouri; New York City metro area, New York; Philadelphia metro area, Pennsylvania; Utah; and western Washington State.

    We obtained convenience samples of deidentified residual patient sera collected for routine screening (eg, cholesterol screening) or clinical management by 2 commercial clinical laboratories (Lab A and Lab B) from 10 sites.

    Results Serum samples were tested from 16 025 persons, 8853 (55.2%) of whom were women; 1205 (7.5%) were 18 years or younger and 5845 (36.2%) were 65 years or older. Most specimens from each site had no evidence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2. Adjusted estimates of the proportion of persons seroreactive to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein antibodies ranged from 1.0% in the San Francisco Bay area (collected April 23-27) to 6.9% of persons in New York City (collected March 23-April 1). The estimated number of infections ranged from 6 to 24 times the number of reported cases; for 7 sites (Connecticut, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, New York City metro area, Utah, and western Washington State), an estimated greater than 10 times more SARS-CoV-2 infections occurred than the number of reported cases.

  59. bestofthebest https://www.google.com fet

    bestofthebest https://www.google.com

  60. unusual cardiac damage in COVID-19:
    https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.049465

    brief selection: there was no pathological evidence of typical lymphocytic myocarditis. Rather, the hearts showed a pattern of individual cell dropout/necrosis/apoptosis not associated with any lymphocytic infiltrate.

    • Don Monfort

      Could be oxidative stress. COVID virus interferes with the reduction of Superoxide molecules ROS (reactive oxygen species):

      Another on the oxidative stress. Take NACL supplement:

      • Don Monfort

        How did that happen?

      • Don Monfort

        It happened again. Sometimes some goofey things happen with youtube links.

        title of first video:

        Coronavirus Pandemic Update 65: COVID-19 and Oxidative Stress (Prevention & Risk Factors)

        the other:

        Coronavirus Pandemic Update 70: Glutathione Deficiency, Oxidative Stress, and COVID 19

        The channel is:
        MedCram

        Lots of very informative and well-explained videos.

      • Don Monfort

        PS: It’s not my fault if anybody watches that thing four times. Somebody alert joshie.

  61. systematic attempt at cross-country comparisons:
    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30208-X/fulltext

    from the abstract: Findings

    Increasing COVID-19 caseloads were associated with countries with higher obesity (adjusted rate ratio [RR]=1.06; 95%CI: 1.01–1.11), median population age (RR=1.10; 95%CI: 1.05–1.15) and longer time to border closures from the first reported case (RR=1.04; 95%CI: 1.01–1.08). Increased mortality per million was significantly associated with higher obesity prevalence (RR=1.12; 95%CI: 1.06–1.19) and per capita gross domestic product (GDP) (RR=1.03; 95%CI: 1.00–1.06). Reduced income dispersion reduced mortality (RR=0.88; 95%CI: 0.83–0.93) and the number of critical cases (RR=0.92; 95% CI: 0.87–0.97). Rapid border closures, full lockdowns, and wide-spread testing were not associated with COVID-19 mortality per million people. However, full lockdowns (RR=2.47: 95%CI: 1.08–5.64) and reduced country vulnerability to biological threats (i.e. high scores on the global health security scale for risk environment) (RR=1.55; 95%CI: 1.13–2.12) were significantly associated with increased patient recovery rates.

  62. Robert Clark

    DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    7/16/2020 66,493 -3,612 -5.1 784,930
    7/17/2020 69,936 3,443 5.1 977,901
    7/18/2020 61,667 -8,269 11.8 1,037,794
    7/19/2020 60,689 -978 -1.58 754,661
    7/20/2020 62,033 1,344 2.2 802,192
    7/21/2020 64,293 2,260 3.6 749,327
    7/22/2020 70,205 5,912 9.2 847,896
    7/23/2020 67,766 -2,439 -3.4 835,177
    67,766 is 8.1% of total tests.
    Today is the 5th day after 1,037,794 tests. Since then the average is 797,000 tests per day. Lets see what happens over the next next 5 days. Hopefully the average daily test will stay above 800,000 per day.

  63. Gradually everybody is reversing their views. Trump is wearing a mask and cancelling a large indoor gathering. Republican governors talking about shutting down again.

    Nice to see some admit it.

    I Was Wrong About Florida’s Response to Covid-19

    I gave Governor Ron DeSantis more credit than he deserved for the low death rate in his state.

    “In retrospect, it’s clear that DeSantis — as well as governors in Texas, Arizona, California and a lot of other states — reopened too early because they too were swayed by their low death rates and were eager to get their economies back on track. They didn’t anticipate how opening bars, in particular, would spread the virus. They weren’t willing to get tough on people who refused to wear masks. Perhaps most important, they didn’t pay enough attention to the reproduction rate — that is, the estimate of the number of people each Covid-positive person would infect. (In Florida, according to one model, it is 1.42)

    Nor did I. After my second Florida column, Felix Salmon, the financial journalist, tweeted: “I’m still unclear what exactly it is that you think DeSantis did that was so effective. Tell old people to be cautious?” His tweet caught me up short. I realized that I was giving the governor credit not because of any particular action he’d taken — other than sealing off nursing homes — but because so few Floridians had died. More likely, Florida was lucky rather than good.”

    https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-07-23/i-was-wrong-about-florida-s-response-to-covid-19

  64. Lots o’ people here who were confidently proclaiming that the increase in cases was nothing to worry about – just a function of more testing, younger and more asymptomatic people testing positive.

    Unfortunately, they were wrong.

    But don’t hold your breath waiting for any of them to acknowledge their over-confidence/disrespect for uncertainty.

    Could happen, but past experience suggests otherwise. Over-confidence and disrespect for uncertainty are hallmarks of much of the “skepticism” at this blog.

  65. Don Monfort

    hydroxychloroquine

    https://www.newsweek.com/key-defeating-covid-19-already-exists-we-need-start-using-it-opinion-1519535?fbclid=IwAR2rHbJeYaS05nbt-GxXE3Y4m9R42SmBQ7ECOIhzSzX2JNBcZheJ6WVLjBA

    “As professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health, I have authored over 300 peer-reviewed publications and currently hold senior positions on the editorial boards of several leading journals. I am usually accustomed to advocating for positions within the mainstream of medicine, so have been flummoxed to find that, in the midst of a crisis, I am fighting for a treatment that the data fully support but which, for reasons having nothing to do with a correct understanding of the science, has been pushed to the sidelines. As a result, tens of thousands of patients with COVID-19 are dying unnecessarily. Fortunately, the situation can be reversed easily and quickly.”

    • Re: Risch and HCQ

      This is because the whole point has been to kill people, frighten the population, and use this to control them. Why? Because the huge pedophile ring that has gone on for a very long time and which everyone (at the top) knew about, and which Epstein was at the center of, is getting exposed, and the people who are part of this are fighting to keep power and control. Epstein mysteriously died in jail but his sidekick, Ghilsaine Maxwell, has been recently arrested alive (so far) in jail and she’ll have a lot to say, and this will expose people at the very top. This is why Fauci could care less about hydroxychloroquine and why the powers-that-be could care less about the FLCCC group: they want people frightened and distracted while they figure out how to squirm out of this.

      There, Josh. Conspiracy theory in spades. I’m kidding, of course.

  66. “Hydroxychloroquine-treated patients were more severely ill at baseline than those who did not receive hydroxychloroquine.” https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2012410

    Refresh my memory: is that the Zelenko protocol of early treatment to save lives?

    “Among patients hospitalized with mild-to-moderate Covid-19, the use of hydroxychloroquine, alone or with azithromycin, did not improve clinical status at 15 days as compared with standard care.” https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2012410

    Refresh my memory: is THAT the Zelenko protocol of early treatment to save lives?

    Does anyone remember what the Zelenko protocol is? Does anyone remember what the claim for that treatment was?

    Has anyone tested the Zelenko protocol?

    What would you have done if you were in Fauci’s position and some MD claimed to have an effective early treatment for Covid-19 using cheap, safe (in the 400mg doses for five days recommended), readily-available drugs? I know what I would’ve done: I would’ve told Zelenko to jump in a lake and I would’ve recommended lockdown of much of the economy and disruption of social life and individual liberties instead of picking up the phone and talking to that nutcase. Because if I were Dr. Fauci, I’d be a lot smarter than I am now.

    I feel like a broken record. Does anyone understand what’s happening? Anyone think this is a bit odd?

  67. Don Monfort

    Brazilian study:

    “Hydroxychloroquine was administered relatively early after symptom onset (median, 7 days)”

    That’s not early.

    NYC study:

    “Hydroxychloroquine-treated patients were more severely ill at baseline than those who did not receive hydroxychloroquine (median ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen, 223 vs. 360).”

    • Another dumb internet based trial from Dr. Boulware’s Univ. of Minnesota crew. Lack of testing, no researcher ever saw or examined a subject, self-qualifying subjects enrolled online, sketchy criteria, blah blah blah.

  68. https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-4207
    “800 mg once, followed by 600 mg in 6 to 8 hours, then 600 mg daily for 4 more days. ” This is 1400 mg of HCQ in the first 24 hours. Is that why the HCQ group had more side effects?

    I don’t understand what protocol this study is testing. We know that many doctors have been using HCQ, so is this study testing one of those protocols? Where are the doses coming from, except from an earlier study whose dosage regime seems arbitrary? The highest dose of HCQ typically used is 800 mg followed by 400 mg in 24 hours (total 2000 mg in three days) for treatment of malaria.

    Are they testing a protocol that’s been claimed to be successful? Is that what they’re testing, if the success is real or biased? What claim are they testing? Do we just throw HCQ at the problem and then say we’re “testing”? Testing what?

    Meanwhile, the claim that 400 mg HCQ, 500 mg Azithromycin, and 220 mg zinc each day for five days is an effective early treatment for Covid-19 with minor side effects goes untested. (Note that the FDA has prohibited the use of azithromycin in outpatient trials– see supplemental material of the paper under discussion, page 4. So the Zelenko protocol cannot be tested!)

    • This is really a broken record. You know it is being tested.

      https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04370782

    • https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04370782

      Completed in December? So soon? You must have a PCR test to confirm– how long does that take? Will it be three days? Is that “early treatment”? Is that the Zelenko protocol? And what exactly are they testing– is this a protocol some hospital is using that they’ve found successful? Where does it come from?

      Is 800 mg HCQ the first day the Zelenko protocol? Is 250 mg azithromycin daily part of the Zelenko protocol? How do they get around the FDA prohibition against using azithromycin in outpatient trials?

      Do they get admitted to the trial only after a positive PCR test? Sounds like it to me. Inclusion criteria: “High initial clinical suspicion by physician based on signs and symptoms (fever, cough, myalgias, fatigue, shortness of breath) followed by RT-PCR for confirmation of COVID-19 diagnosis.” Is that the Zelenko protocol? Does the Zelenko protocol even wait for symptoms in high-risk groups?

      The Zelenko protocol is extremely simple. It is not being tested. You cannot test something “close to” a protocol and then claim you’re testing a protocol, and if you think you are then you should go back to school. Timing matters, and if you’re a doctor and think that it doesn’t matter, then you should go back to med school.

      As I understand it, the entire logic of the Zelenko protocol rests on early treatment, without any delay.

  69. Cue the barrage of complaints about “activist scientists. ”

    Oh… Wait….

    –snip–
    In late March, as COVID-19 cases overran hospitals overseas, Ioannidis tried to organize a meeting at the White House where he and a small band of colleagues would caution the president against “shutting down the country for [a] very long time and jeopardizing so many lives in doing this,” according to a statement Ioannidis submitted on the group’s behalf. Their goal, the statement said, was “to both save more lives and avoid serious damage to the US economy using the most reliable data.”

    Although the meeting did not happen, Ioannidis believed their message had reached the right people. Within a day of him sending it to the White House, Trump announced that he wanted the country reopened by Easter. “I think our ideas have inflitrated [sic] the White House regardless,” Ioannidis told his collaborators on March 28, in one of dozens of emails that BuzzFeed News obtained through public records requests.
    –snip–

    https://www.buzzfeednews.com/amphtml/stephaniemlee/ioannidis-trump-white-house-coronavirus-lockdowns?__twitter_impression=true

    • The dangerous myth that Sweden achieved herd immunity

      View at Medium.com

      • Who cares if Sweden has achieved herd immunity or not? The point is, the population there has soldiered on without lockdown and today they walk around like normal human beings without masks on, and their death rate from Covid-19 is now very low.

      • Don132 –

        > their death rate from Covid-19 is now very low.

        Or, the patient died.. The operation was a success.

        It rate is low now, after being very high up until now. Will little apparent economic benefit. Swedish society shut down very much like in the other Nordic countries – except for the (not unimportant) condition of if being mandated) and is in fact more shut down than some of them now.

        It’s quite likely that outcomes in countries without Sweden’s structural advantages would have been significant worse than in Sweden had they followed a similar policy as they. And without shelter in place orders we would have had death and misery and unployment without benefits of compensating policies such as extended unployment benefits and loan programs.

        I know that you would have preferred that rhe government follow policies preferred by a minority of people who have a disproportionate influence. That is the way for works a lot but it’s unrealistic to expect it to work that way always.

      • Don132 –

        I’m curious.

        > they walk around like normal human beings without masks on

        (1) Do you wear a mask when you can’t social distance, independent of whether doing so is mandated? (2) Are you certain that masks being no net benefit? (3) what do you think of Trump’s statement that wearing a mask is patriotic?

      • “I know that you would have preferred that the government follow policies preferred by a minority of people who have a disproportionate influence.”

        That’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m saying that this whole thing has been idiotic. I’m convinced that we have effective treatments that are being suppressed. For example, witness this comment on a recent essay by Risch (scroll to comment by Daniel Connelly https://www.newsweek.com/key-defeating-covid-19-already-exists-we-need-start-using-it-opinion-1519535):

        “Since March, the physicians and medical providers at our New Jersey internal medicine practice have been prescribing hydroxychloroquine +zinc + azithromycin or doxycycline immediately to newly diagnosed outpatient and nursing home Covid-19 patients. Diagnosis is based on symptoms and chest x-ray followed up by PCR testing for confirmation. To date, in our small sample, everyone has recovered (quickly) with no hospitalizations and no stoppage due to side effects.
        Hydroxychloroquine is used during pregnancy to treat Lupus or Malaria in the mother and cardiac arrhythmia in the fetus. It is pregnancy Category D where benefits of use exceed the risk in case by case basis even though human studies have found no excess risk.
        The drug combination appears both safe and effective when given early. Early, meaning with the onset of symptoms. PCR testing results can take over two weeks to return and the window of opportunity can be lost.”

        (You might look at the comment by ccrevier as well.)

        Yes, Joshua, there IS a conspiracy to stop the early use of HCQ, AZ, and zinc. You’re in denial.

        I never wear a mask anywhere unless it’s required for entry to a store, for example. I try to shop where masks aren’t required. I really don’t care what Trump thinks of that.

    • Even higher than Bergamo!

    • From the article:

      “The virus is gone for now. It will probably come back in winter, but it won’t be a second wave, but just a cold. Those young and healthy people who currently walk around with a mask on their faces would be better off wearing a helmet instead, because the risk of something falling on their head is greater than that of getting a serious case of Covid-19”.

      Perhaps hasn’t seen the stats from Florida or Texas lately where the virus seems to be doing quite well even in summer.

      • Let me elaborate. Sweden didn’t shut down, the virus spread but now the death toll is way down: people got infected and the vast majority were fine, and now it looks a lot like a typical flu season there. Now the Swedes are acting like normal people, and by that I mean they don’t go around with masks on and afraid to get within six feet of anyone.

        In typical years the flu goes around, kills lots and lots of people, and then dies out because no one locks down and everyone gets infected. Now as places open up that were locked down there are new victims: the virus hasn’t gone away, and those most vulnerable will die because we delayed the spread of the virus and in the meantime destroyed livelihoods and made many people dependent on the government.

        My opinion, of course, is that the cure has been worse than the disease. That’s my opinion, and many disagree with that. We can find scientific support for either position, just as we can find scientific support for CO2 warming or no warming from CO2.

    • The immunologist doesn’t know what he is talking about as can be seen from the quote I provided.

      Everyone wasn’t wrong. Experts always emphasized how much we didn’t know while advising caution precisely because we didn’t know.

      And the things the immunologist thinks we do know now we don’t know. Yes, there could be some immunity out there from prior coronaviruses but nobody still knows how much or how effective the immunity is. Things could be getting a lot worse or a lot better right now but we don’t know and, so far, all of the people who have tried to downplay the virus have been more wrong than right.

  70. Your right, James. Covid is going to kill us all as soon as we take off our masks or open up even a bit. Sweden is proof of that.

  71. Robert Clark

    DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    7/16/2020 66,493 -3,612 -5.1 784,930
    7/17/2020 69,936 3,443 5.1 977,901
    7/18/2020 61,667 -8,269 11.8 1,037,794
    7/19/2020 60,689 -978 -1.58 754,661
    7/20/2020 62,033 1,344 2.2 802,192
    7/21/2020 64,293 2,260 3.6 749,327
    7/22/2020 70,205 5,912 9.2 847,896
    7/23/2020 67,766 -2,439 -3.4 835,177
    7/24/2020 76,906 9,140 13.4 962,012
    7/25/2020 63,961 -12,945 -16.8 725,675
    7/26/2020 50,973 -13024 -20.3 770,048
    50,973 is 6.6% of total tests.
    We have begun down. If you, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, are still with me, I would appreciate it if you would copy and paste the below and send it to each of your 3 members of Congress. If enough of the AMERICAN PEOPLE ask, maybe Congress will do something for us.

    I do not know how many of you are out there but you the AMERICAN PEOPLE did this. Now we must ask to keep it going. The proposed bill is said to have $180 million dollars for testing. We need a one line bill, passed and signed next week, so we do not lose control of the virus like we did in June. Contact your Senators and Congress person and tell them to get it done next week!!!

  72. > A New Understanding of Herd Immunity
    The portion of the population that needs to get sick is not fixed. We can change it

    https://t.co/FLwjQteJKm?amp=1

    • So it spreads to the weakest and is blocked by the healthiest. This different than a standard spread rate for all.

      If one could model with enough resolution to include the ages of the actors, that would be an improvement.

    • Joshua,
      This was the basis for one of the recent posts by Nic Lewis, but it seems that you have misunderstood the article. It does not offer a change in the portion of the population that needs to get sick to reach herd immunity. It only changes the prediction of that number from a model. Making an assumption of heterogeneity significantly reduces the predicted herd immunity threshold relative to the value predicted under an assumption of a homogeneous population. The true number hasn’t changed.

    • kribaez –

      > This was the basis for one of the recent posts by Nic Lewis, but it seems that you have misunderstood the article. It does not offer a change in the portion of the population that needs to get sick to reach herd immunity.

      Not sure what you’re referring to. Perhaps it is the sub-heading of the article that you mistook as an expression of my understanding?

      At any rate, the author of the article thinks that level of heterogeneity depends on behaviors and that the HIT depends on level of heterogeneity. A view which, of course, is consistent with the work of Gomes et al.

  73. “… all of the people who have tried to downplay the virus have been more wrong than right.”

    Like Ferguson? Like all the predictions of huge deaths in Sweden?

    Granted, that’s just one opinion. We don’t have to take it as the final truth.

    • Have taken the economic impacts into account for the contention about ‘wrong’?

      We can have half the GDP for 10% less deaths in a year. Do that for a decade. Is that what you want us to do?

      • “It is time to ditch gross domestic product (GDP). Its limitations were recognised as far back as the 1930s. Even the founder of national income accounting, Simon Kuznets, acknowledges it is a tool for measuring economic output rather than a gauge of human wellbeing.

        Focusing on GDP (and its sister measure gross national product, or GNP) distorts decision-making and leaves most of us worse off. Raising expectations of GDP growth has only encouraged populist politics. It is essential that we search for better metrics to guide decision-making.

        Leading economists, such as Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz, have for years argued that GDP should be dropped as a decision-making tool. GDP growth does not reflect the experiences of the mass of the population. GDP may rise but that can all too easily disguise a sharp increase in incomes for the rich and stagnant incomes for the bulk of the population.”

        From GDP numbers spread fake news

        https://www.ipe.com/home/gdp-numbers-spread-fake-news/10042969.article

      • Anything with limitations should be dropped. They said so back in the 30s, when people were really smart.

      • James Cross:
        Sure it has its limitations. Wall Street values it though. The place to put your money is the United States, because of its GDP growth. As much debt as we have, hordes of money keep flowing in. But maybe with all the lock downs, we can ruin that benefit too.
        Keep looking at Western Europe. Failed economies. More levelized incomes though.
        I admit, there is some level of an optimal distribution of incomes. Too much of an imbalance and we’re Mexico. But we need an acceptable answer. Those with the money, and a lot them are Democrats, Clinton Democrats, need to accept the solution. I heard Bill Clinton formed a second Republican party. That’s his adminstration. Hillary would’ve done the same. Big money. Which is how they do it now. They found it worked.

  74. And to add to the mix … now, I know this is Breitbart, but these doctors are NOT Breitbart.

    • Isn’t that interesting? A video of a number of doctors testifying about the successful use of hydroxychloroquine in their practices has been removed. I didn’t watch the whole thing, but I did watch one doctor mention what sounded to me like the Zelenko protocol: HCQ, AZ, and zinc, and 100% success.

    • Here’s a longer presentation by the same doctors making the case for hydroxychloroquine based on their clinical experience. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aX_Q1FaY9pI

  75. Robert Clark

    DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    7/16/2020 66,493 -3,612 -5.1 784,930
    7/17/2020 69,936 3,443 5.1 977,901
    7/18/2020 61,667 -8,269 11.8 1,037,794
    7/19/2020 60,689 -978 -1.58 754,661
    7/20/2020 62,033 1,344 2.2 802,192
    7/21/2020 64,293 2,260 3.6 749,327
    7/22/2020 70,205 5,912 9.2 847,896
    7/23/2020 67,766 -2,439 -3.4 835,177
    7/24/2020 76,906 9,140 13.4 962,012
    7/25/2020 63,961 -12,945 -16.8 725,675
    7/26/2020 50,973 -13024 -20.3 770,048
    7/27/2020 56,928 5,955 11.6 903,286
    56,928 is 6.3% of total tests.
    I thank the individual getting people out for testing.
    % still going down. Tomorrow is another day.

  76. Robert Clark

    DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    7/16/2020 66,493 -3,612 -5.1 784,930
    7/17/2020 69,936 3,443 5.1 977,901
    7/18/2020 61,667 -8,269 11.8 1,037,794
    7/19/2020 60,689 -978 -1.58 754,661
    7/20/2020 62,033 1,344 2.2 802,192
    7/21/2020 64,293 2,260 3.6 749,327
    7/22/2020 70,205 5,912 9.2 847,896
    7/23/2020 67,766 -2,439 -3.4 835,177
    7/24/2020 76,906 9,140 13.4 962,012
    7/25/2020 63,961 -12,945 -16.8 725,675
    7/26/2020 50,973 -13024 -20.3 770,048
    7/27/2020 56,928 5,955 11.6 903,286
    7/28/2020 61,473 2,855 5 737,77
    61,473 is 8.3% of total tests.
    Back the middle of June we were holding in the low 20,000’s per day. Tests were around 500,000 or a little lower per day. We began to lose it and by the middle of June we were lost it. If we want to beat the virus, we must keep the test count at 900,000 and higher. It will not be that expensive to test double what is necessary to keep the count low.
    Remember it takes 4 days after the individual is infected for the test to show positive. Today is the results of that removed on the 1st.

    • Robert Clark

      Back in June, you the AMERICAN PEOPLE, brought the daily positive down to 20,000 per day. Because I did not understand at that time the virus had to grow for 4 days before the test could identify it, we lost control of it. Now we know how to get it back to 20,000 positive per day, I am asking you to do it again and keep the test number high until nature and the scientists eliminate it.
      !!!!! MORE TESTS MORE TESTS !!!!!

  77. Robert Clark

    DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    7/23/2020 67,766 -2,439 -3.4 835,177
    7/24/2020 76,906 9,140 13.4 962,012
    7/25/2020 63,961 -12,945 -16.8 725,675
    7/26/2020 50,973 -13024 -20.3 770,048
    7/27/2020 56,928 5,955 11.6 903,286
    7/28/2020 61,473 2,855 5 737,772
    7/29/2020 61,041 -430 -0.7 949,281
    61,041 is 6.4 % of total tests.
    A good day. Total tests went up and % positive of total tests went down

  78. Robert Clark

    DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    7/23/2020 67,766 -2,439 -3.4 835,177
    7/24/2020 76,906 9,140 13.4 962,012
    7/25/2020 63,961 -12,945 -16.8 725,675
    7/26/2020 50,973 -13024 -20.3 770,048
    7/27/2020 56,928 5,955 11.6 903,286
    7/28/2020 61,473 2,855 5 737,772
    7/29/2020 61,041 -430 -0.7 949,281
    7/30/2020 65,906 4,865 7.9 860,495
    65,906 is 7.7% of total tests.
    The results of 7/29 will show up on 8/3.

    Right now, the American People are holding at over 900,000 tests per day. We will keep it here as long as necessary. We know it will quickly go down to 20,000 positive per day and stop because it takes 4 days for a newly infected individual to grow enough virus to be detected. At that point nature and testing will gradually lower the positive count. All we have to do is keep the test count at 900,000 or higher.

    If we are lucky the Congress will go on their August break without passing any new bills and we, the American people, will get the country open.

  79. Robert Clark

    DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    7/23/2020 67,766 -2,439 -3.4 835,177
    7/24/2020 76,906 9,140 13.4 962,012
    7/25/2020 63,961 -12,945 -16.8 725,675
    7/26/2020 50,973 -13024 -20.3 770,048
    7/27/2020 56,928 5,955 11.6 903,286
    7/28/2020 61,473 2,855 5 737,772
    7/29/2020 61,041 -430 -0.7 949,281
    7/30/2020 65,906 4,865 7.9 860,495
    7/31/2020 70,033 3,799 5.8 1,147,374
    70,033 is 6.1% of total tests.
    The next week will really be interesting.
    Keep the test number high.
    Only 1 word says what the AMERICAN PEOPLE have done.
    !!!!! WOWW !!!!!

    • Robert Clark

      Text your 3 members of Congress and tell them no bill until afrer 8/9/2020. By then you will have the virus growth well in hand. Save our children,s future.

  80. Robert Clark

    DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    7/23/2020 67,766 -2,439 -3.4 835,177
    7/24/2020 76,906 9,140 13.4 962,012
    7/25/2020 63,961 -12,945 -16.8 725,675
    7/26/2020 50,973 -13024 -20.3 770,048
    7/27/2020 56,928 5,955 11.6 903,286
    7/28/2020 61,473 2,855 5 737,772
    7/29/2020 61,041 -430 -0.7 949,281
    7/30/2020 65,906 4,865 7.9 860,495
    7/31/2020 70,033 3,799 5.8 1,147,374
    8/1/2020 57,065 -12,968 -18.5 617,965
    57,065 is 9.2% of total tests.
    % of positive went from 6.1% to 9.2% in 24 hours. a gain of 50%.
    Total tests went from 1,147,374 to 617,965 in 124 hours. A drop of 46%
    EXPLAIN THE 2 LINES ABOVE!!!
    Tomorrow is another day.

    • Robert Clark

      Saterday’s % positive I used is the positive listed on 8/1. The actual percentage depends on that removed 5 days earier on 5/27. That is true for each day. Tomorrow will be that removed on the 29th.

  81. Robert Clark

    DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    7/23/2020 67,766 -2,439 -3.4 835,177
    7/24/2020 76,906 9,140 13.4 962,012
    7/25/2020 63,961 -12,945 -16.8 725,675
    7/26/2020 50,973 -13024 -20.3 770,048
    7/27/2020 56,928 5,955 11.6 903,286
    7/28/2020 61,473 2,855 5 737,772
    7/29/2020 61,041 -430 -0.7 949,281
    7/30/2020 65,906 4,865 7.9 860,495
    7/31/2020 70,033 3,799 5.8 1,147,374
    8/1/2020 57,065 -12,968 -18.5 617,965
    8/2/2020 48,450 -8,615 -15.1 696,965
    48,450 is 6.1% of total tests.
    The last 2 days the total tests has dropped. We must keep it 900,000 or higher The lower the percentage, the harder it is to find infected individuals.
    20,000 pasitive would be 2% of 1,000,000 tests. As you found out in june that is needed because it takes an infected imdividual 4 days to grow enough virus to be detected by the test.

  82. Robert Clark

    DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    7/23/2020 67,766 -2,439 -3.4 835,177
    7/24/2020 76,906 9,140 13.4 962,012
    7/25/2020 63,961 -12,945 -16.8 725,675
    7/26/2020 50,973 -13024 -20.3 770,048
    7/27/2020 56,928 5,955 11.6 903,286
    7/28/2020 61,473 2,855 5 737,772
    7/29/2020 61,041 -430 -0.7 949,281
    7/30/2020 65,906 4,865 7.9 860,495
    7/31/2020 70,033 3,799 5.8 1,147,374
    8/1/2020 57,065 -12,968 -18.5 617,965
    8/2/2020 48,450 -8,615 -15.1 696,965
    8/3/2020 47,970 -480 1 1,041,481
    47,970 is 4.6% of positive tests.
    As I said. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL OPEN THE COUNTRY

  83. Robert Clark

    DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    7/23/2020 67,766 -2,439 -3.4 835,177
    7/24/2020 76,906 9,140 13.4 962,012
    7/25/2020 63,961 -12,945 -16.8 725,675
    7/26/2020 50,973 -13024 -20.3 770,048
    7/27/2020 56,928 5,955 11.6 903,286
    7/28/2020 61,473 2,855 5 737,772
    7/29/2020 61,041 -430 -0.7 949,281
    7/30/2020 65,906 4,865 7.9 860,495
    7/31/2020 70,033 3,799 5.8 1,147,374
    8/1/2020 57,065 -12,968 -18.5 617,965
    8/2/2020 48,450 -8,615 -15.1 696,965
    8/3/2020 47,970 -480 1 1,041,481
    8/4/2020 53,687 5,717 11.9 1,113,461
    53,687 is 4.8% of total tests.
    Tomorrow is the 5th day after 7/31/2020. The positives show the affect of the removal of the 70 positives on that day.

  84. Robert Clark

    DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    7/27/2020 56,928 5,955 11.6 903,286
    7/28/2020 61,473 2,855 5 737,772
    7/29/2020 61,041 -430 -0.7 949,281
    7/30/2020 65,906 4,865 7.9 860,495
    7/31/2020 70,033 3,799 5.8 1,147,374
    8/1/2020 57,065 -12,968 -18.5 617,965
    8/2/2020 48,450 -8,615 -15.1 696,965
    8/3/2020 47,970 -480 1 1,041,481
    8/4/2020 53,687 5,717 11.9 1,113,461
    8/5/2020 54,684 997 1.8 766,699
    54,684 is 7.1% of total tests.
    I expected a good drop on the positive. and 1,000,000+ tests. We will hopefully see it tomorrow.

  85. Robert Clark

    DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    7/27/2020 56,928 5,955 11.6 903,286
    7/28/2020 61,473 2,855 5 737,772
    7/29/2020 61,041 -430 -0.7 949,281
    7/30/2020 65,906 4,865 7.9 860,495
    7/31/2020 70,033 3,799 5.8 1,147,374
    8/1/2020 57,065 -12,968 -18.5 617,965
    8/2/2020 48,450 -8,615 -15.1 696,965
    8/3/2020 47,970 -480 1 1,041,481
    8/4/2020 53,687 5,717 11.9 1,113,461
    8/5/2020 54,684 997 1.8 766,699
    8/6/2020 55,223 539 1 815,848
    We need to average the tests over 900,000 a day for the next 5 days. This will show we can bring it down to 20,000 positive a day and that it is the 4 day delay for the virus to show on the test.
    Save our children’s future from CONGRESS.

  86. Robert Clark

    DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    7/27/2020 56,928 5,955 11.6 903,286
    7/28/2020 61,473 2,855 5 737,772
    7/29/2020 61,041 -430 -0.7 949,281
    7/30/2020 65,906 4,865 7.9 860,495
    7/31/2020 70,033 3,799 5.8 1,147,374
    8/1/2020 57,065 -12,968 -18.5 617,965
    8/2/2020 48,450 -8,615 -15.1 696,965
    8/3/2020 47,970 -480 1 1,041,481
    8/4/2020 53,687 5,717 11.9 1,113,461
    8/5/2020 54,684 997 1.8 766,699
    8/6/2020 55,223 539 1 815,848
    8/7/2020 61,922 5,857 10.6 686,053
    61,922 is 9.0% of total tests.
    Tomorrow’s positive results show’s that of the positives removed on the 3rd. This, hopefully, will show the beginning of a large drop in positives over the next 4 days. This is what a large positive, thus a large test count, can do to the % positive of tests. This is the way we control the growth of positive.

  87. Robert Clark

    DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    7/27/2020 56,928 5,955 11.6 903,286
    7/28/2020 61,473 2,855 5 737,772
    7/29/2020 61,041 -430 -0.7 949,281
    7/30/2020 65,906 4,865 7.9 860,495
    7/31/2020 70,033 3,799 5.8 1,147,374
    8/1/2020 57,065 -12,968 -18.5 617,965
    8/2/2020 48,450 -8,615 -15.1 696,965
    8/3/2020 47,970 -480 1 1,041,481
    8/4/2020 53,687 5,717 11.9 1,113,461
    8/5/2020 54,684 997 1.8 766,699
    8/6/2020 55,223 539 1 815,848
    8/7/2020 61,922 5,8 57 10.6 686,053
    8/8/2020 52,251 -967 15.6 690,560
    52,251 is 7.6% of total tests. 1% lower than yesterday. It should continue down for the next 3 days. Then our total tests drop off.
    I believe we must be above 900,000 tests to keep a good daily drop in positive tests.
    !!!!! MORE TESTS !!!!!

  88. Robert Clark

    DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    7/27/2020 56,928 5,955 11.6 903,286
    7/28/2020 61,473 2,855 5 737,772
    7/29/2020 61,041 -430 -0.7 949,281
    7/30/2020 65,906 4,865 7.9 860,495
    7/31/2020 70,033 3,799 5.8 1,147,374
    8/1/2020 57,065 -12,968 -18.5 617,965
    8/2/2020 48,450 -8,615 -15.1 696,965
    8/3/2020 47,970 -480 1 1,041,481
    8/4/2020 53,687 5,717 11.9 1,113,461
    8/5/2020 54,684 997 1.8 766,699
    8/6/2020 55,223 539 1 815,848
    8/7/2020 61,922 5,857 10.6 686,053
    8/8/2020 52,251 -967 15.6 690,560
    8/9/2020 47,055 -5,196 9.9 919,964
    47,055 is 5.1% of total tests. Down from 7.6% yesterday.Hopefully Congress will come to their senses and see what the AMERICAN PEOPLE have done.
    SAVE OUR CHILDREN’S FUTURE.

    • I am assuming that 20,000 new daily infected individuals are what the virus makes at the end of the 4 days and it is not detectable by the test. Therefore, when those in charge of tracing notifying the individuals found positive, must see the contacts with the positive individuals are tested immediately but also get another test day 6 after their last contact.

  89. More details on clinical practice in Didier Raoult practice in Marseille:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7315163/

    • a snippet: Considering that death was a main outcome and that only 35 patients died in our cohort (0.9%), the number of covariates to be included in multivariate analyses was a priori limited to three variables: previous health status (modified Charlson combined comorbidity index) [22], severity of the disease (NEWS-2 score) and treatment (HCQ-AZ for at least 3 days).Association between treatment (HCQ + AZ≥3days) and death was estimated by Cox regression models using three different methods. In the primary analysis, a multivariable Cox regression adjusted on the combined comorbidity index and the NEWS score was performed. We conducted a secondary analysis that used propensity-score matching. The propensity score was calculated using multivariable logistic regression on the combined comorbidity index and the NEWS score. Each patient of the “other treatment” group was matched to a patient selected of the “HCQ-AZ ≥ 3 days” group using the 1:1 nearest-neighbour propensity score matching method to create a matched sample. The third analysis used inverse probability weighting

      • to me, this is the strongest evidence yet published in support of early use of HCQ. Table two shows clearly that the “best treatment” group was not exactly matched by the other treatment groups on comorbidities or age; the authors attempted to address that with a propensity score analysis. Granted that such things can’t be done perfectly, it looks to be like they did it well (also, I well remember being totally fooled by the Lancet study that was bogus.)

        selected results: The mean duration of hospitalization was significantly shorter in the HCQ-AZ group (7.3 days (sd 7) vs 9.2 (sd 8.1) than in the other treatment groups. The proportion of patients hospitalized �10 days was 3.5% in the HCQ-AZ group and 14.2% in the other treatment groups (Table 4). We observed that 9 of the 35 patients who died (25.7%) developed a concurrent bacterial infection, including community-acquired Streptococcus pneumoniae in 2 patients, ventilation-acquired pneumonia in 4 patients, catheter-associated septicaemia in 2 patients and cholecystitisrelated septicaemia in 1 patient (Table S5).

        As the youngest patient who died was 60 , …

        Reducing hospital stay by 1.9 days on average, on a large number of patients, is a good result, to my mind.

        I think that this paper deserves a wide readership.

    • One of the issues here is that advocates of using HCQ say that any (RCT) studies where zinc hasn’t been used aren’t instructive (as to the efficacy of a protocol where zinc is used), and yet will say that (retrospective) studies that report good results but where zinc isn’t used are instructive as to the efficacy of HCQ.

      I hope this study’s results are substantiated by RCTs. But the whole situations’s pretty much a mess.

      • Joshua: One of the issues here is that advocates of using HCQ say that any (RCT) studies where zinc hasn’t been used aren’t instructive (as to the efficacy of a protocol where zinc is used), and yet will say that (retrospective) studies that report good results but where zinc isn’t used are instructive as to the efficacy of HCQ.

        I don’t think that is an issue here .

  90. Robert Clark

    DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    8/2/2020 48,450 -8,615 -15.1 696,965
    8/3/2020 47,970 -480 1 1,041,481
    8/4/2020 53,687 5,717 11.9 1,113,461
    8/5/2020 54,684 997 1.8 766,699
    8/6/2020 55,223 539 1 815,848
    8/7/2020 61,922 5,857 10.6 686,053
    8/8/2020 52,251 -967 15.6 690,560
    8/9/2020 47,055 -5,196 -9.9 919,964
    8/10/2020 44,544 -2,511 -5.3 680,164
    44,544 is 6.5% of total tests.
    I am assuming that 20,000 new daily infected individuals are what the virus makes at the end of the 4 days and it is not detectable by the test. Therefore, when those in charge of tracing notifying the individuals found positive, must see the contacts with the positive individuals are tested immediately but also get another test day 6 after their last contact.

  91. Robert Clark

    DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    8/2/2020 48,450 -8,615 -15.1 696,965
    8/3/2020 47,970 -480 1 1,041,481
    8/4/2020 53,687 5,717 11.9 1,113,461
    8/5/2020 54,684 997 1.8 766,699
    8/6/2020 55,223 539 1 815,848
    8/7/2020 61,922 5,857 10.6 686,053
    8/8/2020 52,251 -967 15.6 690,560
    8/9/2020 47,055 -5,196 -9.9 919,964
    8/10/2020 45,960 -1,095 -2.3 713,610
    8/11/2020 52,234 6,274 13.6 797,115
    52,234 is 6.5% of total tests. We need tests at over 800,000 per day to get down to the 20,000 new positive per day treading water point. When we lost it in June we were going between 400,000 to 600,000 per day. If we don’t do it we will lose the little we just gained. Today was the result of the 6th.
    !!!!! MORE TESTS !!!!!

  92. Robert Clark

    DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    8/2/2020 48,450 -8,615 -15.1 696,965
    8/3/2020 47,970 -480 1 1,041,481
    8/4/2020 53,687 5,717 11.9 1,113,461
    8/5/2020 54,684 997 1.8 766,699
    8/6/2020 55,223 539 1 815,848
    8/7/2020 61,922 5,857 10.6 686,053
    8/8/2020 52,251 -967 15.6 690,560
    8/9/2020 47,055 -5,196 -9.9 919,964
    8/10/2020 45,960 -1,095 -2.3 713,610
    8/11/2020 52,234 6,274 13.6 797,115
    8/12/2020 53,600 1,366 2.6 548,779
    53.600 is 9.7% of total tests, 6.5% yesterday. UNBELIEVABLE
    Tomorrow is the result of 8/8. We will see what we will see.

  93. It’s just nuts that we still don’t have widespread access to N95 masks:

    > Face masks are emerging as one of the most powerful weapons to fight the new coronavirus, with growing evidence that facial coverings help prevent transmission—even if an infected wearer is in close contact with others.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/face-masks-really-do-matter-the-scientific-evidence-is-growing-11595083298?mod=wsjtwittertest19

    • Joshua,

      The “science” on face masks is all over the place. You can choose which side you want to be on and then find plenty of research to back it up.

      But we can look at real-life experience and get some answers. In Sweden, almost no one wears face masks and Sweden is doing fine, with hospitalizations and deaths decreasing.

      • Don: The “science” on face masks has been politicized, but can be easily interpreted with a little common sense. Mask-wearing South Korea (with 50% of its people living in one of the most densely populated cities in the world) is doing far better than Sweden. However, there are many factors that make Sweden, South Korea and the US different, including the fact that the US pandemic doubled every 2.5 days in March (5,000-fold increase) before lock down, while it doubled every 5 days in Sweden. Country-to-country comparisons are suspect because of all these differences.

        We know that respiratory viruses are transmitted by inhaling exhaled infectious droplets (that quickly fall from the air) and aerosols (that remain suspended in the air). (Transmission by hand from infected surfaces to mucus membranes is also a possibility.) We know BEYOND ANY DOUBT that masks and good hand hygiene work exceptionally well IN HOSPITALS where the danger of transmission is greatest. This has been proven in many scientific studies.

        Do masks work in the general community? Confusion arises when data is analyzed on an “intent-to-treat” basis – on the basis of an intervention’s success in an entire target population. Policymakers and other decision makers need to know whether to spend money and effort on large groups of people, and so focus on intent-to-treat analyses. Studies on college student volunteers wearing masks during flu season (and in other situations where it is practical to perform good studies) often fail to show statistically significant benefits on an intent-to-treat basis. However, compliance is low. When results are adjusted for the number of self-reported hours surgical masks were worn, then there is a significantly significant benefit to diligent mask wearers. Since compliance is low, the CDC didn’t recommend using surgical masks reduce influenza outbreaks on campuses and other risky locations. And given the limited supply of masks at the beginning of this pandemic, they didn’t change that recommendation. NEVERTHELESS, there is good evidence that masks benefit THOSE MOTIVATED ENOUGH TO WEAR THEM. And there is good reason to hope (at least before Trump politicized the issue) that compliance will be higher when the threat is COVID rather than flu, especially among the vulnerable and those living close to them.

        The amount of benefit depends on how careful users are: how snuggly masks fit (what fraction of the air is filtered) and how carefully their infected outer surfaces are handled and cleaned if re-usable. There is no doubt that masks block most transmission by droplets when used correctly and provide some protection against aerosols. (Many aerosol droplets need to be inhaled to initiate an infection, but one large droplet can be enough.) There is also no doubt that careless users will get far less benefit. Perhaps the best one can do with an ordinary mask is cut your risk of transmission by 50% and many people might get much less benefit.

        Even a 20% reduction in transmission would be important to the whole population: In a stable pandemic with a relatively constant number of new cases, one infected person infects an average of one new person. If masks can cut that down to an average of 0.8 new people, in 10 weeks the number of new cases will be reduced by 90%. And if we can combined masks with other effective measures (and there are many that can help WITHOUT complete lock downs), progress can be faster. There will always be localized outbreaks where many people choose to ignore the risk and congregate indoors in a large group, but masks can keep those situation from spreading further.

  94. Robert Clark

    DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    8/2/2020 48,450 -8,615 -15.1 696,965
    8/3/2020 47,970 -480 1 1,041,481
    8/4/2020 53,687 5,717 11.9 1,113,461
    8/5/2020 54,684 997 1.8 766,699
    8/6/2020 55,223 539 1 815,848
    8/7/2020 61,922 5,857 10.6 686,053
    8/8/2020 52,251 -967 15.6 690,560
    8/9/2020 47,055 -5,196 -9.9 919,964
    8/10/2020 45,960 -1,095 -2.3 713,610
    8/11/2020 52,234 6,274 13.6 797,115
    8/12/2020 53,600 1,366 2.6 548,779
    8/13/2020 53,613 13 0.02 998,436
    53,613 is 5.3% of total tests. Can we believe the difference a day makes?
    We will see tomorrow.

  95. DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    8/2/2020 48,450 -8,615 -15.1 696,965
    8/3/2020 47,970 -480 1 1,041,481
    8/4/2020 53,687 5,717 11.9 1,113,461
    8/5/2020 54,684 997 1.8 766,699
    8/6/2020 55,223 539 1 815,848
    8/7/2020 61,922 5,857 10.6 686,053
    8/8/2020 52,251 -967 15.6 690,560
    8/9/2020 47,055 -5,196 -9.9 919,964
    8/10/2020 45,960 -1,095 -2.3 713,610
    8/11/2020 52,234 6,274 13.6 797,115
    8/12/2020 53,600 1,366 2.6 548,779
    8/13/2020 53,613 13 0.02 998,436
    8/14/2020 59,911 6,298 11.7 854,048
    59,911 is 7.0% of total tests.
    Those are not new cases. They are infected individuals out in the public infecting others. They have been doing that from 1 to 18 days. Our job is to find them and have each isolate thus lower the percentage of positives found daily.
    Look at the 3rd and 4th. Now look down 5 days. It takes 4 days before the test can see the infection. That shows the removal of those individuals.
    That is all we are trying to do. More tests means a lower percentage

  96. Robert Clark

    DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    8/2/2020 48,450 -8,615 -15.1 696,965
    8/3/2020 47,970 -480 1 1,041,481
    8/4/2020 53,687 5,717 11.9 1,113,461
    8/5/2020 54,684 997 1.8 766,699
    8/6/2020 55,223 539 1 815,848
    8/7/2020 61,922 5,857 10.6 686,053
    8/8/2020 52,251 -967 15.6 690,560
    8/9/2020 47,055 -5,196 -9.9 919,964
    8/10/2020 45,960 -1,095 -2.3 713,610
    8/11/2020 52,234 6,274 13.6 797,115
    8/12/2020 53,600 1,366 2.6 548,779
    8/13/2020 53,613 13 0.02 998,436
    8/14/2020 59,911 6,298 11.7 854,048
    8/15/2020 53,023 -6,888 -11.5 817,776
    53,023 is 6.5% of total tests.
    The way I read the above pile of numbers the next week will be interesting.
    YOU THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DID IT.

  97. Robert Clark

    DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    8/8/2020 52,251 -967 15.6 690,560
    8/9/2020 47,055 -5,196 -9.9 690,560
    8/10/2020 45,960 -1,095 -2.3 690,560
    8/11/2020 52,234 6,274 13.6 690,560
    8/12/2020 53,600 1,366 2.6 690,560
    8/13/2020 53,613 13 0.02 690,560
    8/14/2020 59,911 6,298 11.7 690,560
    8/15/2020 53,023 -6,888 -11.5 690,560
    8/16/2020 35,677 -17,346 -32.7 784,496
    35,677 is 4.5% of total tests.

    !!!!! WOWW !!!!!

  98. Robert Clark

    DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    8/8/2020 52,251 -967 15.6 690,560
    8/9/2020 47,055 -5,196 -9.9 919,964
    8/10/2020 45,960 -1,095 -2.3 713,610
    8/11/2020 52,234 6,274 13.6 797,115
    8/12/2020 53,600 1,366 2.6 548,779
    8/13/2020 53,613 13 0.02 998,436
    8/14/2020 59,911 6,298 11.7 854,048
    8/15/2020 53,023 -6,888 -11.5 817,776
    8/16/2020 35,677 -17,346 -32.7 784,496
    8/17/2020 37,690 2,013 0.56 600,658
    37,690 is 6.3% of total tests.
    Total tests, thus %, looks fishy.
    We will see tomorrow.

    • Robert Clark

      The deep state has been uncovered. If each infected individual makes 1 new infected per day then in 4 days that individual is responsible for 15 new cases in 4 days. (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 = 15). On the 5th day the total cases is 15 cases les for each infected individual asked to self-isolate. There is no way yesterday can be correct!!!!!.

  99. Robert Clark

    DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    8/8/2020 52,251 -967 15.6 690,560
    8/9/2020 47,055 -5,196 -9.9 919,964
    8/10/2020 45,960 -1,095 -2.3 713,610
    8/11/2020 52,234 6,274 13.6 797,115
    8/12/2020 53,600 1,366 2.6 548,779
    8/13/2020 53,613 13 0.02 998,436
    8/14/2020 59,911 6,298 11.7 854,048
    8/15/2020 53,023 -6,888 -11.5 817,776
    8/16/2020 35,677 -17,346 -32.7 784,496
    8/17/2020 37,690 2,013 0.56 600,658
    8/18/2020 41,318 3,628 9.6 778,641
    41318 1s 5.3% of total tests.
    Today was the result of the 59,911 removed on the 14th.
    They accepted the drop on the 16th. Why did it not stop dropping there? According to the CDC it did.
    Tomorrow is another day.

    • The rate of hospitalizations is down quite a bit, as is the money of cases. Should see a drop in rate of deaths soon.

      Unfortunately, the disparity in rate of hospitalizations by race/ethnicity is still huge.

  100. reposted, belongs here:
    covariate-adjusted death rates for White and Black patients about equal:
    https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2769387?utm_source=For_The_Media&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=ftm_links&utm_term=081820

    snippet: Findings In this cohort study of 11 210 individuals with COVID-19 presenting for care at 92 hospitals across 12 states, there was no difference in all-cause, in-hospital mortality between White and Black patients after adjusting for age, sex, insurance status, comorbidity, neighborhood deprivation, and site of care.

    “neighborhood deprivation and site of care”?

    What was suspected is here confirmed, withing the limits of analysis of covariance.

  101. Robert Clark

    DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    8/8/2020 52,251 -967 15.6 690,560
    8/9/2020 47,055 -5,196 -9.9 919,964
    8/10/2020 45,960 -1,095 -2.3 713,610
    8/11/2020 52,234 6,274 13.6 797,115
    8/12/2020 53,600 1,366 2.6 548,779
    8/13/2020 53,613 13 0.02 998,436
    8/14/2020 59,911 6,298 11.7 854,048
    8/15/2020 53,023 -6,888 -11.5 817,776
    8/16/2020 35,677 -17,346 -32.7 784,496
    8/17/2020 37,690 2,013 0.56 600,658
    8/18/2020 41,318 3,628 9.6 778,641
    8/19/2020 42,740 1,422 3.4 758,889
    42,740 is 5.6% of total tests.
    On 8/10 it was set for 5 good days of lowering the positives being removed 5 days later. It did begin on the 15th. It only lasted 2 days.
    The only way to overcome our problem is get the test average around 1,000,000 a day I do believe we are fighting the swamp.

    • According to me the next 2 days are affected by the last of the 50,000 positive removal days. I think the Governors of each state should check their state’s positivity and act accordingly. Nationally we should be close to the 20,000 positivity number.

  102. Robert Clark

    DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    8/8/2020 52,251 -967 15.6 690,560
    8/9/2020 47,055 -5,196 -9.9 919,964
    8/10/2020 45,960 -1,095 -2.3 713,610
    8/11/2020 52,234 6,274 13.6 797,115
    8/12/2020 53,600 1,366 2.6 548,779
    8/13/2020 53,613 13 0.02 998,436
    8/14/2020 59,911 6,298 11.7 854,048
    8/15/2020 53,023 -6,888 -11.5 817,776
    8/16/2020 35,677 -17,346 -32.7 784,496
    8/17/2020 37,690 2,013 0.56 600,658
    8/18/2020 41,318 3,628 9.6 778,641
    8/19/2020 42,740 1,422 3.4 758,889
    8/20/2020 43,737 997 2.3 766,889
    43,737 is 5.7% of total tests. I still believe it must actually be around 20,000 or 2.6% of total tests.
    I have no more to say. Tomorrow is another day.

  103. Robert Clark

    DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    8/8/2020 52,251 -967 15.6 690,560
    8/9/2020 47,055 -5,196 -9.9 919,964
    8/10/2020 45,960 -1,095 -2.3 713,610
    8/11/2020 52,234 6,274 13.6 797,115
    8/12/2020 53,600 1,366 2.6 548,779
    8/13/2020 53,613 13 0.02 998,436
    8/14/2020 59,911 6,298 11.7 854,048
    8/15/2020 53,023 -6,888 -11.5 817,776
    8/16/2020 35,677 -17,346 -32.7 784,496
    8/17/2020 37,690 2,013 0.56 600,658
    8/18/2020 41,318 3,628 9.6 778,641
    8/19/2020 42,740 1,422 3.4 758,889
    8/20/2020 43,737 997 2.3 766,889
    43,737 is 5.7% of total tests. I still say we have to be around 20,00 positive or about 2.5% of total tests.
    Tomorrow is another day.

  104. Robert Clark

    8/8/2020 52,251 -967 15.6 690,560
    8/9/2020 47,055 -5,196 -9.9 919,964
    8/10/2020 45,960 -1,095 -2.3 713,610
    8/11/2020 52,234 6,274 13.6 797,115
    8/12/2020 53,600 1,366 2.6 548,779
    8/13/2020 53,613 13 0.02 998,436
    8/14/2020 59,911 6,298 11.7 854,048
    8/15/2020 53,023 -6,888 -11.5 817,776
    8/16/2020 35,677 -17,346 -32.7 784,496
    8/17/2020 37,690 2,013 0.56 600,658
    8/18/2020 41,318 3,628 9.6 778,641
    8/19/2020 42,740 1,422 3.4 758,889
    8/20/2020 43,737 997 2.3 766,889
    43,737 nis 5.9% of total tests.
    I thought we had it beaten a few days ago but today shows we area loosing it. The percentage is going up. That means it is making more infected individuals than we are removing.
    We must get up to 1,000,000 tests a day and keep it there for many days.
    YOU DID IT IN MAY, NOW YOU MUST DO IT AGAIN!!!!!
    GET THE KIDS BACK TO SCHOOL SAFELY.

  105. Robert Clark

    DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    8/15/2020 53,023 -6,888 -11.5 817,776
    8/16/2020 35,677 -17,346 -32.7 784,496
    8/17/2020 37,690 2,013 0.56 600,658
    8/18/2020 41,318 3,628 9.6 778,641
    8/19/2020 42,740 1,422 3.4 758,889
    8/20/2020 43,737 997 2.3 766,889
    8/21/2020 49,025 5,288 12.1 828,087
    8/22/2020 42,462 -6,563 -13.3 763,095
    42,462 is 5.6% of total tests.
    We have been treading water for the last 2 weeks. The data on the 15th and 16th must be a mathematical error. As we did in May and June I am asking for a large increase in testing to begin us on a lowering of the percentage.

  106. Robert Clark

    DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    8/15/2020 53,023 -6,888 -11.5 817,776
    8/16/2020 35,677 -17,346 -32.7 784,496
    8/17/2020 37,690 2,013 0.56 600,658
    8/18/2020 41,318 3,628 9.6 778,641
    8/19/2020 42,740 1,422 3.4 758,889
    8/20/2020 43,737 997 2.3 766,889
    8/21/2020 49,025 5,288 12.1 828,087
    8/22/2020 42,462 -6,563 -13.3 763,095
    8/23/2020 31,381 -11,081 -26 682,957
    31,381 is 4.6% of total tests.
    The %came down a little. If we want schools to open safely I think we must get the percent close to 2%.

  107. DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    8/15/2020 53,023 -6,888 -11.5 817,776
    8/16/2020 35,677 -17,346 -32.7 784,496
    8/17/2020 37,690 2,013 0.56 600,658
    8/18/2020 41,318 3,628 9.6 778,641
    8/19/2020 42,740 1,422 3.4 758,889
    8/20/2020 43,737 997 2.3 766,889
    8/21/2020 49,025 5,288 12.1 828,087
    8/22/2020 42,462 -6,563 -13.3 763,095
    8/23/2020 31,381 -11,081 -26 682,957
    8/24/2020 40,123 8,742 27.8 744,276
    40,123 is 5.4% of total tests.

  108. Robert Clark

    DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    8/15/2020 53,023 -6,888 -11.5 817,776
    8/16/2020 35,677 -17,346 -32.7 784,496
    8/17/2020 37,690 2,013 0.56 600,658
    8/18/2020 41,318 3,628 9.6 778,641
    8/19/2020 42,740 1,422 3.4 758,889
    8/20/2020 43,737 997 2.3 766,889
    8/21/2020 49,025 5,288 12.1 828,087
    8/22/2020 42,462 -6,563 -13.3 763,095
    8/23/2020 31,381 -11,081 -26 682,957
    8/24/2020 40,123 8,742 27.8 744,276
    8/25/2020 39,075 -1,048 -2.6 1,056,525
    39,075 is 3.7% of total tests.
    I was very discouraged today watching the numbers. At 6:00 PM CDT it was at 660,663 total tests. My Wife got her hip replaced 2 weeks ago. I had gotten what I did this for. Then at 2 minutes to 7:00 I looked at the numbers. Now I have to keep it up. YOU CAN DO THIS!!!!!!

    • Robert Clark

      Looking this morning, this may just be they finally checked the boolks. They are just correcting how they cooked the books.

  109. Robert Clark

    DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    8/15/2020 53,023 -6,888 -11.5 817,776
    8/16/2020 35,677 -17,346 -32.7 784,496
    8/17/2020 37,690 2,013 0.56 600,658
    8/18/2020 41,318 3,628 9.6 778,641
    8/19/2020 42,740 1,422 3.4 758,889
    8/20/2020 43,737 997 2.3 766,889
    8/21/2020 49,025 5,288 12.1 828,087
    8/22/2020 42,462 -6,563 -13.3 763,095
    8/23/2020 31,381 -11,081 -26 682,957
    8/24/2020 40,123 8,742 27.8 744,276
    8/25/2020 39,075 -1,048 -2.6 1,056,525
    8/26/2020 42,233 3,158 8.1 666,860
    42,233 is 6.3% of total tests. Still treading water.
    Tomorrow is another day. MORE TESTS.

  110. From WSJ 8/12/20 https://www.wsj.com/articles/fed-official-warns-pandemic-response-is-hobbling-economic-rebound-11597241418

    ““Limited or inconsistent efforts by states to control the virus based on public health guidance are not only placing citizens at unnecessary risk of severe illness and possible death but are also likely to prolong the economic downturn,” Boston Fed President Eric Rosengren said on Wednesday in a webinar with the South Shore Chamber of Commerce in Massachusetts.”

    “Mr. Rosengren said he expected the unemployment rate, which stood slightly above 10% in July, would be slow to decline given worsening public-health situations in some states that were quick to lift lockdown orders in May. Easing restrictions prematurely “hurt both the economy and public health,” he said.”

    “By contrast, Mr. Rosengren pointed to data on infection and death rates from Europe, which imposed tighter limits on commercial activity in the spring and has seen a stronger rebound in economic activity in recent weeks due to much lower infection rates.”

    Conclusion: A robust economic recover means we must suppress the pandemic – either naturally by approaching herd immunity (and we don’t know when that will happen) or by making it less likely that virus will be transmitted between people. There are many public health measures we can take or implement more effectively short of locking down businesses.

  111. Robert Clark

    or by making it less likely that virus will be transmitted between people
    That is what you have been doing for the last 6 plus months.
    Today looks like we may be having another beginning.

  112. Robert Clark

    DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    8/15/2020 53,023 -6,888 -11.5 817,776
    8/16/2020 35,677 -17,346 -32.7 784,496
    8/17/2020 37,690 2,013 0.56 600,658
    8/18/2020 41,318 3,628 9.6 778,641
    8/19/2020 42,740 1,422 3.4 758,889
    8/20/2020 43,737 997 2.3 766,889
    8/21/2020 49,025 5,288 12.1 828,087
    8/22/2020 42,462 -6,563 -13.3 763,095
    8/23/2020 31,381 -11,081 -26 682,957
    8/24/2020 40,123 8,742 27.8 744,276
    8/25/2020 39,075 -1,048 -2.6 1,056,525
    8/26/2020 42,233 3,158 8.1 666,860
    8/27/2020 44,153 1,920 4.5 806,571
    44,153 is 5.5% of total tests.
    A decent test number. A million would be better. Today will show up on the 1st. A string of high test numbers will get us to 20,000 daily positive and the tracers using the 6 days to the second test for the individuals in contact with the positive individuals, hopefully, will help find the impossible ones.

  113. > The most commonly used test for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 is a PCR test that is able to detect very low viral loads and inform on treatment decisions. Medical research has confirmed that many individuals might be infected with SARS-CoV-2 but not infectious. Knowing whether an individual is infectious is the critical piece of information for a decision to isolate an individual or not. This paper examines the value of different tests from an information-theoretic approach and shows that applying treatment-based approval standards for tests for infection will lower the value of those tests and likely causes decisions based on them to have too many false positives (i.e., individuals isolated who are not infectious). The conclusion is that test scoring be tailored to the decision being made.

    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3682242

  114. Robert Clark

    DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    8/21/2020 49,025 5,288 12.1 828,087
    8/22/2020 42,462 -6,563 -13.3 763,095
    8/23/2020 31,381 -11,081 -26 682,957
    8/24/2020 40,123 8,742 27.8 744,276
    8/25/2020 39,075 -1,048 -2.6 1,056,525
    8/26/2020 42,233 3,158 8.1 666,860
    8/27/2020 44,153 1,920 4.5 806,571
    8/28/2020 47,557 3,404 7.7 816,858
    47,557 is 5.8% of total tests.
    Total tests a little higher. Lets keep it climbing. We must remove more infected than it makes.

  115. Robert Clark

    DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    8/21/2020 49,025 5,288 12.1 828,087
    8/22/2020 42,462 -6,563 -13.3 763,095
    8/23/2020 31,381 -11,081 -26 682,957
    8/24/2020 40,123 8,742 27.8 744,276
    8/25/2020 39,075 -1,048 -2.6 1,056,525
    8/26/2020 42,233 3,158 8.1 666,860
    8/27/2020 44,153 1,920 4.5 806,571
    8/28/2020 47,557 3,404 7.7 816,858
    8/29/2020 40,720 -6,837 -14.3 855,560
    40,720 is 4.7% of total tests. % went down tests went up a little. very good sign.

  116. Robert Clark

    DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    8/21/2020 49,025 5,288 12.1 828,087
    8/22/2020 42,462 -6,563 -13.3 763,095
    8/23/2020 31,381 -11,081 -26 682,957
    8/24/2020 40,123 8,742 27.8 744,276
    8/25/2020 39,075 -1,048 -2.6 1,056,525
    8/26/2020 42,233 3,158 8.1 666,860
    8/27/2020 44,153 1,920 4.5 806,571
    8/28/2020 47,557 3,404 7.7 816,858
    8/29/2020 40,720 -6,837 -14.3 855,560
    8/30/2020 33,540 -7,180 -17.6 727,085
    35,540 is 4.6% of total tests.
    If you look at 8/23 above this is where we were then and it was stopped.
    I said this would show up on 9/1.I guess I was wrong.
    THIS IS GOING TO BE INTERESTING. YOU DID IT IN JUNE. NOW WE KNOW WHY WE COULD NOT GET PAST 20,000 PER DAY.

  117. Robert Clark

    DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    8/21/2020 49,025 5,288 12.1 828,087
    8/22/2020 42,462 -6,563 -13.3 763,095
    8/23/2020 31,381 -11,081 -26 682,957
    8/24/2020 40,123 8,742 27.8 744,276
    8/25/2020 39,075 -1,048 -2.6 1,056,525
    8/26/2020 42,233 3,158 8.1 666,860
    8/27/2020 44,153 1,920 4.5 806,571
    8/28/2020 47,557 3,404 7.7 816,858
    8/29/2020 40,720 -6,837 -14.3 855,560
    8/30/2020 33,540 -7,180 -17.6 727,085
    8/31/2020 37,560 4,020 12 714,128
    37,560 is 5.3% of total tests.
    Tomorrow is the result of isolating 44,153 infected individuals on 8/27.
    That means they were not mingling in public infecting others for the last 4 days. It will be what it will be.

  118. DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    8/21/2020 49,025 5,288 12.1 828,087
    8/22/2020 42,462 -6,563 -13.3 763,095
    8/23/2020 31,381 -11,081 -26 682,957
    8/24/2020 40,123 8,742 27.8 744,276
    8/25/2020 39,075 -1,048 -2.6 1,056,525
    8/26/2020 42,233 3,158 8.1 666,860
    8/27/2020 44,153 1,920 4.5 806,571
    8/28/2020 47,557 3,404 7.7 816,858
    8/29/2020 40,720 -6,837 -14.3 855,560
    8/30/2020 33,540 -7,180 -17.6 727,085
    8/31/2020 37,560 4,020 12 714,128
    9/1/2020 40,853 3,293 8.8 783,791
    40,853 is 5.2% of total tests.
    Not what I expected. I expected a drop as in 9/29 and 9/30. I also expect it to continue as long as the tests remain above 800,000 per day.
    Tomorrow is another day.

  119. DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    8/21/2020 49,025 5,288 12.1 828,087
    8/22/2020 42,462 -6,563 -13.3 763,095
    8/23/2020 31,381 -11,081 -26 682,957
    8/24/2020 40,123 8,742 27.8 744,276
    8/25/2020 39,075 -1,048 -2.6 1,056,525
    8/26/2020 42,233 3,158 8.1 666,860
    8/27/2020 44,153 1,920 4.5 806,571
    8/28/2020 47,557 3,404 7.7 816,858
    8/29/2020 40,720 -6,837 -14.3 855,560
    8/30/2020 33,540 -7,180 -17.6 727,085
    8/31/2020 37,560 4,020 12 714,128
    9/1/2020 40,853 3,293 8.8 783,791
    9/2/2020 40,083 770 1.9 745,791
    40,083 is 5.4% of total tests. % went up a little.
    It should start down. We will see tomorrow.

  120. DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    8/21/2020 49,025 5,288 12.1 828,087
    8/22/2020 42,462 -6,563 -13.3 763,095
    8/23/2020 31,381 -11,081 -26 682,957
    8/24/2020 40,123 8,742 27.8 744,276
    8/25/2020 39,075 -1,048 -2.6 1,056,525
    8/26/2020 42,233 3,158 8.1 666,860
    8/27/2020 44,153 1,920 4.5 806,571
    8/28/2020 47,557 3,404 7.7 816,858
    8/29/2020 40,720 -6,837 -14.3 855,560
    8/30/2020 33,540 -7,180 -17.6 727,085
    8/31/2020 37,560 4,020 12 714,128
    9/1/2020 40,853 3,293 8.8 783,791
    9/2/2020 40,083 770 1.9 745,791
    9/3/2020 43,318 3,235 8 739,104
    43,318 is 5.9% of total tests. % is up a little from yesterday. Are the tracers getting those individuals close to the positive getting a second test after 6 days?
    MORE TESTS !!!

  121. DATE ISOLATED increase % # TESTS
    8/26/2020 42,233 3,158 8.1 666,860
    8/27/2020 44,153 1,920 4.5 806,571
    8/28/2020 47,557 3,404 7.7 816,858
    8/29/2020 40,720 -6,837 -14.3 855,560
    8/30/2020 33,540 -7,180 -17.6 727,085
    8/31/2020 37,560 4,020 12 714,128
    9/1/2020 40,853 3,293 8.8 783,791
    9/2/2020 40,083 770 1.9 745,791
    9/3/2020 43,318 3,235 8 739,104
    9/4/2020 51,252 7,934 18.3 1,030,104
    51,252 is 5.0% 0f total tests.
    I have only one explanation for the above. They tried the follow-up test on the 6th day for a few days. Today they started making many phone calls.
    Even if I am wrong, what ever it is keep it up.
    YOU CAN BEAT THIS VIRUS.