Coronavirus

[highfigh]

Since porous vs non-porous was mentioned, I wonder how many people wear one mask for many days and become infected in the event that they were exposed and didn't properly disinfect after touching the mask.

 

[Mr._Clark]

Yesterday many news reports announced positive results for remdesivir in treating Covid-19 patients. I found them so vague that I had trouble understanding their full impact. I finally found the link for that remdesivir clinical trial, and another link for an NIH press release describing it's results so far.

The clinical trial itself:

ClinicalTrials.gov

clinicaltrials.gov

This is a very big trial, more than 1,000 patients, taking place in as many as 100 different locations around the world. It's still going on. It was designed to allow interim analysis while the trial is still going on. This can give results faster than if we had to wait for final results:

"There will be interim monitoring to introduce new arms and allow early stopping for futility, efficacy, or safety. If one therapy proves to be efficacious, then this treatment may become the control arm for comparison(s) with new experimental treatment(s)."​

The NIH press release from April 29, 2020.

NIH clinical trial shows Remdesivir accelerates recovery from advanced COVID-19

Preliminary results indicate that patients who received remdesivir had a 31% faster time to recovery than those who received placebo.

www.nih.gov

Two paragraphs from the press release said:

An independent data and safety monitoring board (DSMB) overseeing the trial met on April 27 to review data and shared their interim analysis with the study team. Based upon their review of the data, they noted that remdesivir was better than placebo from the perspective of the primary endpoint, time to recovery, a metric often used in influenza trials. Recovery in this study was defined as being well enough for hospital discharge or returning to normal activity level.​

​

Preliminary results indicate that patients who received remdesivir had a 31% faster time to recovery than those who received placebo (p<0.001). Specifically, the median time to recovery was 11 days for patients treated with remdesivir compared with 15 days for those who received placebo. Results also suggested a survival benefit, with a mortality rate of 8.0% for the group receiving remdesivir versus 11.6% for the placebo group (p=0.059).​

interim analysis – This was the analysis of about 400 patients, half of whom received remdesivir. The faster time-to-recovery for remdesivir patients met the study's primary goal at the interim analysis time point. The p value, p<0.001, means that this data fit the statistical model's prediction extremely well. In non-statistical language, this means the results are highly reliable. Data from a secondary goal, patient survival, had a p value of 0.059. In most statistical analyses of this kind of data, a p value of <0.05 is desired. So, p=0.059 is close but no cigar. Hence the words "suggested a survival benefit" are used, instead of saying the data demonstrated or indicated a survival benefit.

Preliminary results – This trial is still going on. It's final results will be evaluated closely at a later time. It is possible that the final results may differ from those reported after interim analysis.

Overall, these results for remdesivir are very encouraging.

Compare the remdesivir reports with those we previously saw with hydroxychloroquine. Instead of a well designed clinical trial of hundreds, we were told "What have you got to loose?".

In one sense 8% vs 11.6% mortality seems like a relatively small difference. On the other hand, if this applies on a larger scale it would mean that the total number of fatalities in the U.S. could have gone from roughly 60,000 to 40,000 with treatment.

It will be interesting to see if earlier treatment with remdesivir can keep people from crashing and produce an even better reduction in mortality. My impression is that even a modest reduction in the viral load early might keep a lot of patients from progressing to more severe illness. I'm not an expert in any of this, so this is more of a hope on my part than anything.

 

[Swerd]

In one sense 8% vs 11.6% mortality seems like a relatively small difference. On the other hand, if this applies on a larger scale it would mean that the total number of fatalities in the U.S. could have gone from roughly 60,000 to 40,000 with treatment.

Everyone focuses on the mortality percentages, 8% vs. 11.6%. But the statistical significance, p=0.059, isn't there.

To use more rigorous language, p=0.059 means that it is statistically unreliable that those 8% and 11.6% mortality numbers might actually be due to real differences, and not random selection error, among ~400 patients. (I hate trying to talk about statistics in plain English.)

But the data for shorter hospital stays, from 15 to 11 days, is statistically highly significant.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Everyone focuses on the mortality percentages, 8% vs. 11.6%. But the statistical significance, p=0.059, isn't there.

To use more rigorous language, p=0.059 means that it is statistically unreliable that those 8% and 11.6% mortality numbers might actually be due to real differences, and not random selection error, among ~400 patients. (I hate trying to talk about statistics in plain English.)

But the data for shorter hospital stays, from 15 to 11 days, is statistically highly significant.

And, Fauci so stated it in fewer words: not significant.

 

[mtrycrafts]

But we've done more tests than any other country.

Yes, by raw numbers. Don't forget Trump also stated we tested more than all the others put together. That statement is also recorded in that other link. Patently false.
And, to be fair, the #/population size is more meaningful. In that count US is #43.
We are also #1 in total cases, new cases and a number of other categories.

I would also add that with people being instructed to stay home unless they feel there symptoms are unmanageable. I feel like the numbers are intentionally slow. Who is controlling the tests? I know that right now it wouldn't be Trump saying I cant get a test done it would be the person at the test facility.

And yes, it has been stated that these numbers are understated. People who die at home for one have not been tested before just like the California death that became the earliest deaths as they were tested afterward.
The tests are controlled by the number of tests available.

 

[JerryLove]

Since porous vs non-porous was mentioned, I wonder how many people wear one mask for many days and become infected in the event that they were exposed and didn't properly disinfect after touching the mask.

That's true for all clothing. I suspect "not many".

Masks, especially the ones most people are wearing (and how those are worn) are far more useful for preventing you from infecting others than the other way around.

 

[mtrycrafts]

...

Masks, especially the ones most people are wearing (and how those are worn) are far more useful for preventing you from infecting others than the other way around.

And, that is exactly what the experts are stating why it needs to be worn.

 

[JerryLove]

NIH abruptly cuts coronavirus research funding, alarming scientists

The funding went to understanding how coronaviruses jump from bats to humans.

arstechnica.com

 

[Mr._Clark]

Everyone focuses on the mortality percentages, 8% vs. 11.6%. But the statistical significance, p=0.059, isn't there.

To use more rigorous language, p=0.059 means that it is statistically unreliable that those 8% and 11.6% mortality numbers might actually be due to real differences, and not random selection error, among ~400 patients. (I hate trying to talk about statistics in plain English.)

But the data for shorter hospital stays, from 15 to 11 days, is statistically highly significant.

I agree that if p=0.050 is selected as the criteria for statistical significance it does not meet that criteria. But that does not mean it has zero evidentiary value. 0.050 is not a magic number.

In the real world the difference between p=0.049999999999999 and p=0.0500000000000001 are tiny, but in the world of statistical significance we apply a simplistic black and white rule (made up arbitrarily by someone many years ago) and say that one is "statistically significant" or "statistically reliable" whereas the other is statistically insignificant or statistically unreliable.

If nothing else, I think you would agree that the test results do not say it is statistically impossible that the drug could reduce mortality by 30%

 

[Swerd]

I agree that if p=0.050 is selected as the criteria for statistical significance it does not meet that criteria. But that does not mean it has zero evidentiary value. 0.050 is not a magic number.

In the real world the difference between p=0.049999999999999 and p=0.0500000000000001 are tiny, but in the world of statistical significance we apply a simplistic black and white rule (made up arbitrarily by someone many years ago) and say that one is "statistically significant" or "statistically reliable" whereas the other is statistically insignificant or statistically unreliable.

If nothing else, I think you would agree that the test results do not say it is statistically impossible that the drug could reduce mortality by 30%

It's not worth worrying about. These results are from an interim analysis of a trial that is continuing. When finished, the trial's follow-up data will be the final word.

 

[mtrycrafts]

NIH abruptly cuts coronavirus research funding, alarming scientists

The funding went to understanding how coronaviruses jump from bats to humans.

arstechnica.com

Unreal! What the hell is going on there in that scull of his???
He must be outraged that he cannot blame or tie it to the the Chinese lab?

 

[mtrycrafts]

I agree that if p=0.050 is selected as the criteria for statistical significance it does not meet that criteria. But that does not mean it has zero evidentiary value. 0.050 is not a magic number.

In the real world the difference between p=0.049999999999999 and p=0.0500000000000001 are tiny, but in the world of statistical significance we apply a simplistic black and white rule (made up arbitrarily by someone many years ago) and say that one is "statistically significant" or "statistically reliable" whereas the other is statistically insignificant or statistically unreliable.

If nothing else, I think you would agree that the test results do not say it is statistically impossible that the drug could reduce mortality by 30%

Yes, but have seen arguments for a p=0.01.
Perhaps with a large enough subjects that may be achievable?
But I guess we are in a hurry so p=0.05 will do for now.

 

[TLS Guy]

Unreal! What the hell is going on there in that scull of his???
He must be outraged that he cannot blame or tie it to the the Chinese lab?

I think the thinking in the UK that there may well have been an accident in one of the Wuhan labs. As far as I can piece it together there are two viral labs in Wuhan.

There is the Wuhan institute of virology, whose director is Shi Zhengli. She has an international reputation as a leading researcher. When this outbreak occurred she is on record of wondering whether an accident had occurred at her lab. She carried out an investigation and could not find an occasion where procedures where not followed and where a security breech could have occurred.

However there is Wuhan's Center for Disease Prevention and Control. This is less then a quarter mile from the wet market thought to be the origin of this outbreak.

This facility was built with French assistance and was as, I understand it, originally a French design and initially built with their assistance. However the Chinese made modifications and the French refused to certify this lab. So it is a potentially hazardous lab.

There have been two escapes of dangerous pathogens documented from a virology lab in Bejing. They were Sars type viruses and the outbreaks contained. Singapore has also had documented accidents.

The attempts by the Chinese to cover this event up for several months and the disinformation campaign they have attempted are troubling.

So there is no suggestion this is a custom tailored virus, but a very good possibility that it was the result of a breech at the Wuhan Center for Disease Prevention and Control and the proximity to the wet market accelerating it.

 

[Gmoney]

Anyone happen to notice Trumps new Press secretary? A little Blonde woman, well I just happen to be watching and she busted out with Quote: I will never like you and you can quote me on that” was told to a Media person from one of the fake news clan. I believe she may be on to something start making T-shirts with, “I will never like you and you can quote me on that“. kicker would be Trump wearing that red hat on his head that says make America great again. on the front of the T-shirt. On the back of the T-shirt would be the “I will never like you and you can quote me on that” looking for Investors now inbox me! Don’t Steal my Idea! just trying to make lite of this really Horrible disease that is taken so many lives and all but Ruined so many lives. My best wishes go out to all those who are Suffering and have lost loved ones.

 

[Trell]

Anyone happen to notice Trumps new Press secretary? A little Blonde woman, well I just happen to be watching and she busted out with Quote: I will never like you and you can quote me on that” was told to a Media person from one of the fake news clan. I believe she may be on to something start making T-shirts with, “I will never like you and you can quote me on that“. kicker would be Trump wearing that red hat on his head that says make America great again. on the front of the T-shirt. On the back of the T-shirt would be the “I will never like you and you can quote me on that” looking for Investors now inbox me! Don’t Steal my Idea! just trying to make lite of this really Horrible disease that is taken so many lives and all but Ruined so many lives. My best wishes go out to all those who are Suffering and have lost loved ones.

She also promised never to lie, but that didn't last long.

What you have is an administration with no credibility during a deadly pandemic which makes combatting it much harder, causing many unnecessary deaths.

https://www.vox.com/2020/5/1/21244463/kayleigh-mcenany-first-press-briefing-lies

 

[Gmoney]

She also promised never to lie, but that didn't last long.

What you have is an administration with no credibility during a deadly pandemic which makes combatting it much harder, causing many unnecessary deaths.

https://www.vox.com/2020/5/1/21244463/kayleigh-mcenany-first-press-briefing-lies

i see you got what I was Trying to convey in my post on this virus thing. Totally agree with you brother! Sad sad sad it is we have a Administration up in our Country’s capital that should make anyone sick to their Stomach on the issue at hand. Never have I seen a Administration like the one that’s in power now. It’s the most Unprofessional Administration I have seen to date! Never have I seen a Administration use illusion Ethics as a Ally to Justified the lack of competency in this administration at a time that’s Unprecedented to date.

 

[TankTop5]

No Cookies | Daily Telegraph

No Cookies

www.dailytelegraph.com.au

 

[TLS Guy]

The world needs to start gearing up to produce this vaccine at Warp speed and shorten the misery. It would be a good gamble.

 

[mtrycrafts]

She also promised never to lie, but that didn't last long....
https://www.vox.com/2020/5/1/21244463/kayleigh-mcenany-first-press-briefing-lies

How long did it take?


Oh, 15 min. That is pretty long time for them not to lie.
Might be a new record.

 

[mtrycrafts]

And, another article about the origins of covid19

Where did Covid-19 come from? What we know about its origins

Scientists cast doubt on the Trump-backed theory that the coronavirus escaped from a Chinese lab

www.theguardian.com