mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
Wisconsin had over 19K cases a couple of days ago- by far, the most. Still, deaths are not keeping up and the overall number of deaths is less than 1%.

While I'll be very happy when/if this ends, I still wonder "What's next?".
While 1% may look small, 1% of overall population, not so much, 3.+ million.
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Field Marshall
Yeah, it is strange that folks will follow the media narrative on IVM, whatever that may be. Thought this was interesting from the NIH website:
The question is why ivermection doesn't seem to show any benefits in larger randomized trials? Perhaps the observational studies were in geographic areas where there were numerous parasitic infections, and the ivermectin helped with COVID by killing the parasites. I'm not saying this is "the" answer, but it seems plausible.

>>>“In the beginning, there was a lot of scientific interest in (ivermectin),” Mills said, because in computer modelling, it showed “signals” the anti-parasite drug could be effective against the COVID virus.
The drug, however, “also indicates it works for Ebola and Zika (virus) and everything,” he added.
Mills’ group, however, conducted the largest trial to show that ivermectin is not an effective treatment for COVID alone.
Unfortunately, those promoting ivermectin as a treatment are doing so blindly, Mills said, while critics dismiss the treatment unscientifically as a “horse dewormer,” when it has plenty of uses in humans.
“It’s a fantastic drug for conditions like river blindness and parasitic infections,” Mills said.
And the reason he doesn’t believe ivermectin should be completely dismissed is because “we don’t understand the role of parasite co-infection during COVID,” Mills said, including places where there are a lot of parasitic infections that end up in the lungs of patients.
“If you’re genuinely treating those (parasite) infections, you probably are having an effect on the COVID outcomes,” Mills said.<<<

 
Kvn_Walker

Kvn_Walker

Audioholic Field Marshall
Some of your comments make me wonder if you are simply making up stuff that fits preconceived conspiracy theories. But it's more likely that you are repeating what you've heard from highly questionable sources, such as Faux News or other sources with axes to grind.
Those conclusions are one and the same, therefore you are correct on both counts.
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Field Marshall
As of January 14, new cases and new hospitalizations are starting to drop in New York City, but deaths are still increasing (the drop in new hospitalizations is small and the number is still large).

It will be interesting to see what happens over the next two weeks or so.

 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Field Marshall
Deaths increasing the tail ends of "delta?"
I haven't seen any "hard" numbers showing which variant was detected in those that have died. The delta peak (last chart below) occurred around 12/6/21, but there were still a number of delta cases after this (also, the chart makes it clear that "recent data are incomplete" so who really knows how accurate this is). According to this chart, there was quite a bit of overlap between delta and omicron in the middle part of December.

From what I have seen, in past waves the death peak occurred around 21 days after the peak in new cases. 21 days after 12/6/21 does coincide with the start of the of the increase in deaths at the end of December, but it seems to me that if delta was the only "thing" driving the increase in deaths the numbers would not have continued to increase well into January (There were 0 deaths reported on January 15 and 16 which creates a slight pause, but I strongly suspect the numbers were not reported over the weekend so this pause may not be "real").

My best guess is that there's a mix of delta and omicron right now, but I would also guess that omicron is probably the main variant driving the death numbers right now.

But, those are just guesses. I really don't know.


1642432526306.png


1642432451296.png

1642432597740.png


 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Samurai
I haven't seen any "hard" numbers showing which variant was detected in those that have died. The delta peak (last chart below) occurred around 12/6/21, but there were still a number of delta cases after this (also, the chart makes it clear that "recent data are incomplete" so who really knows how accurate this is). According to this chart, there was quite a bit of overlap between delta and omicron in the middle part of December.

From what I have seen, in past waves the death peak occurred around 21 days after the peak in new cases. 21 days after 12/6/21 does coincide with the start of the of the increase in deaths at the end of December, but it seems to me that if delta was the only "thing" driving the increase in deaths the numbers would not have continued to increase well into January (There were 0 deaths reported on January 15 and 16 which creates a slight pause, but I strongly suspect the numbers were not reported over the weekend so this pause may not be "real").

My best guess is that there's a mix of delta and omicron right now, but I would also guess that omicron is probably the main variant driving the death numbers right now.

But, those are just guesses. I really don't know.


View attachment 53150

View attachment 53149
View attachment 53151

Seems like Omicron might spike but drop in a hurry. Hopefully.
Why does NYC seem to be having problems? International hub, cold etc?
 
SithZedi

SithZedi

Audioholic General
The CDC is having a hard time with data (as are many) in this surge. Going from estimating 73% for new cases being omicron and then revising it to 23% the next week makes for difficulties running numbers. Delta still high and driving the body count.

 
SithZedi

SithZedi

Audioholic General
Seems like Omicron might spike but drop in a hurry. Hopefully.
Why does NYC seem to be having problems? International hub, cold etc?
Many factors, International hub, urban concentration, etc. Another aspect is the refusal of segments of the population to get the vaccines. Example, I have relatives that teach in NYC elementary schools. In speaking to them and their teacher friends they say a large portion of their kids and families have not been vaccinated and refuse to be. It's not due to lack of availability either. It's pockets of red state anti-vac attitudes in urban zones.
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Field Marshall
Going from estimating 73% for new cases being omicron and then revising it to 23% the next week makes for difficulties running numbers.
Yeah, this was brought up in this thread a few weeks ago:


I found some articles discussing the CDC's revisions (It's still unclear to me what the prevalence of "Ice Ice Baby" is, however).

>>>Why the CDC lowered its estimate

The CDC uses a model called Nowcast to estimate coronavirus variants’ prevalence in the United States. It can take two to three weeks after a specimen is collected to determine its genetic sequence, according to the CDC — meaning officials don’t immediately know what variant of the coronavirus a person is infected with when they test positive for COVID-19. Additionally, genetic sequencing isn’t performed on all coronavirus samples.

Nowcast uses genomic surveillance data from previous weeks to provide a more recent estimate on a variant’s spread, the CDC says. Those estimates, however, can change as the CDC gets more data.

The estimates also use confidence intervals, or a range of possible values, The New York Times reported. Jasmine Reed, a CDC spokesperson, told Politico that the change in the agency’s estimate was due to the rate at which the omicron variant is spreading. “There was a wide predictive interval posted in last week’s chart, in part because of the speed at which omicron was increasing,” Reed said, according to Politico. “We had more data come in from that time frame and there was a reduced proportion of omicron.” But a CDC spokesperson told Reuters “it’s important to note” that the agency is “still seeing a steady increase in the proportion of omicron” cases. Experts told The New York Times it’s likely the CDC’s current estimate on omicron’s prevalence will change, too.

“I just want people to be very aware that that is an estimate, that’s not actually from sequence-confirmed cases,” Nathan Grubaugh, an epidemiologist at the Yale School of Public Health, told the NYT. “With omicron in particular, it’s been very difficult to have any sort of projections, because things are changing just so so rapidly.”

Experts weigh in on the revision

David O’Connor, a virologist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, told The New York Times that the CDC’s original estimate on omicron’s prevalence during the week of Dec. 18 “seemed high” and noted that the number was based on a “relatively small number of sequences.” “It’s like playing ‘Name That Tune,’ and trying to say, based on just the first note, if the song is ’Ice Ice Baby’ by Vanilla Ice, or ‘Under Pressure,’” O’Connor told the outlet. “Without more data, it can be really hard to know which one it’s going to be.”<<<

 
SithZedi

SithZedi

Audioholic General
Yeah, this was brought up in this thread a few weeks ago:


I found some articles discussing the CDC's revisions (It's still unclear to me what the prevalence of "Ice Ice Baby" is, however).

>>>Why the CDC lowered its estimate

The CDC uses a model called Nowcast to estimate coronavirus variants’ prevalence in the United States. It can take two to three weeks after a specimen is collected to determine its genetic sequence, according to the CDC — meaning officials don’t immediately know what variant of the coronavirus a person is infected with when they test positive for COVID-19. Additionally, genetic sequencing isn’t performed on all coronavirus samples.

Nowcast uses genomic surveillance data from previous weeks to provide a more recent estimate on a variant’s spread, the CDC says. Those estimates, however, can change as the CDC gets more data.

The estimates also use confidence intervals, or a range of possible values, The New York Times reported. Jasmine Reed, a CDC spokesperson, told Politico that the change in the agency’s estimate was due to the rate at which the omicron variant is spreading. “There was a wide predictive interval posted in last week’s chart, in part because of the speed at which omicron was increasing,” Reed said, according to Politico. “We had more data come in from that time frame and there was a reduced proportion of omicron.” But a CDC spokesperson told Reuters “it’s important to note” that the agency is “still seeing a steady increase in the proportion of omicron” cases. Experts told The New York Times it’s likely the CDC’s current estimate on omicron’s prevalence will change, too.

“I just want people to be very aware that that is an estimate, that’s not actually from sequence-confirmed cases,” Nathan Grubaugh, an epidemiologist at the Yale School of Public Health, told the NYT. “With omicron in particular, it’s been very difficult to have any sort of projections, because things are changing just so so rapidly.”

Experts weigh in on the revision

David O’Connor, a virologist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, told The New York Times that the CDC’s original estimate on omicron’s prevalence during the week of Dec. 18 “seemed high” and noted that the number was based on a “relatively small number of sequences.” “It’s like playing ‘Name That Tune,’ and trying to say, based on just the first note, if the song is ’Ice Ice Baby’ by Vanilla Ice, or ‘Under Pressure,’” O’Connor told the outlet. “Without more data, it can be really hard to know which one it’s going to be.”<<<

Thanks for that. Didn't mean to bring up already chartered waters.
BTW, Ice, Ice, Baby has got to be one of the worst songs ever inflicted the US population
 
cpp

cpp

Audioholic Samurai
The question is why ivermection doesn't seem to show any benefits in larger randomized trials? Perhaps the observational studies were in geographic areas where there were numerous parasitic infections, and the ivermectin helped with COVID by killing the parasites. I'm not saying this is "the" answer, but it seems plausible.

>>>“In the beginning, there was a lot of scientific interest in (ivermectin),” Mills said, because in computer modelling, it showed “signals” the anti-parasite drug could be effective against the COVID virus.
The drug, however, “also indicates it works for Ebola and Zika (virus) and everything,” he added.
Mills’ group, however, conducted the largest trial to show that ivermectin is not an effective treatment for COVID alone.
Unfortunately, those promoting ivermectin as a treatment are doing so blindly, Mills said, while critics dismiss the treatment unscientifically as a “horse dewormer,” when it has plenty of uses in humans.
“It’s a fantastic drug for conditions like river blindness and parasitic infections,” Mills said.
And the reason he doesn’t believe ivermectin should be completely dismissed is because “we don’t understand the role of parasite co-infection during COVID,” Mills said, including places where there are a lot of parasitic infections that end up in the lungs of patients.
“If you’re genuinely treating those (parasite) infections, you probably are having an effect on the COVID outcomes,” Mills said.<<<

I was checking my mail today and the wife next door said her husband has covid ( per the health dept) and was taking invermectin, that he got somewhere. And has had major nausea, and she said he's hardheaded, and still doesn't think much of what he's got, but its in his chest and he has a major cough but interesting, no fever at all.
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Field Marshall
Since it's a slow news day (other than the undeniably exciting developments associated with the Ice Ice Baby revival), here's a report about a study that purportedly identified a specific protective gene variant:

>>>Protective gene variant against COVID-19 identified

An international metastudy conducted by researchers at Karolinska Institutet in Sweden, the Lady Davis Institute of the Jewish General Hospital in Canada and VA Boston Healthcare System in the U.S. has identified a specific gene variant that protects against severe COVID-19 infection. The researchers managed to pinpoint the variant by studying people of different ancestries; a feat they say highlights the importance of conducting clinical trials that include people of diverse descents. . . .

According to the researchers, the protective gene variant (rs10774671-G) determines the length of the protein encoded by the gene OAS1. Prior studies have shown that the longer variant of the protein is more effective at breaking down SARS-CoV-2, the virus causing the disease COVID-19.

“That we are beginning to understand the genetic risk factors in detail is key to developing new drugs against COVID-19,” says co-author Brent Richards, senior investigator at the Lady Davis Institute of the Jewish General Hospital and professor at McGill University in Canada.<<<

 
highfigh

highfigh

Audioholic Slumlord
While 1% may look small, 1% of overall population, not so much, 3.+ million.
I meant that the death rate as a percentage is dropping. Yesterday, WI showed more than 35K cases, but that was due to changing the reporting method. Great, no consistency again. However, in that 35K infections, only 4 deaths. Even if it had been 12K-15K cases, four deaths is a huge improvement.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Audioholic Slumlord
I was checking my mail today and the wife next door said her husband has covid ( per the health dept) and was taking invermectin, that he got somewhere. And has had major nausea, and she said he's hardheaded, and still doesn't think much of what he's got, but its in his chest and he has a major cough but interesting, no fever at all.
Other than the nausea, his symptoms sound like mine- no fever, at all. I'm sure he is easily fatigued and has problems sleeping, too- can't cough this much AND sleep well.
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
I meant that the death rate as a percentage is dropping. Yesterday, WI showed more than 35K cases, but that was due to changing the reporting method. Great, no consistency again. However, in that 35K infections, only 4 deaths. Even if it had been 12K-15K cases, four deaths is a huge improvement.
Wonder how many of those 35K were vaccinated fully and were those 4 vaxxed.
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top