| Is the lock down ending too soon? 04:59 - Jul 1 with 141039 views | Glyn1 |
That's basically it.
Thoughts please. [Post edited 1 Jul 2020 5:00]
|  |
| |  |
| Is the lock down ending too soon? on 09:34 - Sep 1 with 1330 views | exhmrc1 |
Interesting comments from a Public Health consultant where the real problem is. Jonhson opening up airports has caused 30 new cases in Wales. No wonder the figures are going up. This is to one of the safe Air Bridges countries.
It comes as a Public Health Wales official revealed there have been 30 cases in Wales in the last week where people had travelled back from the Greek island.
Dr Gwen Lowe, consultant in communicable disease control for Public Health Wales, told Today: "In the last week we’ve had about 30 cases in Wales that have come back from Zante.
"Different flights on different days staying in different locations. These are confirmed positive cases and we’re expecting that number to rise."
Dr Lowe said it is "very obvious" from the work carried out in Wales that the majority of people do not catch the virus from strangers.
"Yes, you can be unlucky, and you can get it from a random stranger or from a super spreader, but the vast majority of people get it from their workmates, their work buddies, their family, and their friends," she said. |  | | |
| Is the lock down ending too soon? on 09:50 - Sep 1 with 1316 views | Scotia |
| Is the lock down ending too soon? on 09:34 - Sep 1 by exhmrc1 |
Interesting comments from a Public Health consultant where the real problem is. Jonhson opening up airports has caused 30 new cases in Wales. No wonder the figures are going up. This is to one of the safe Air Bridges countries.
It comes as a Public Health Wales official revealed there have been 30 cases in Wales in the last week where people had travelled back from the Greek island.
Dr Gwen Lowe, consultant in communicable disease control for Public Health Wales, told Today: "In the last week we’ve had about 30 cases in Wales that have come back from Zante.
"Different flights on different days staying in different locations. These are confirmed positive cases and we’re expecting that number to rise."
Dr Lowe said it is "very obvious" from the work carried out in Wales that the majority of people do not catch the virus from strangers.
"Yes, you can be unlucky, and you can get it from a random stranger or from a super spreader, but the vast majority of people get it from their workmates, their work buddies, their family, and their friends," she said. |
Cardiff airport is owned by Welsh Government. The flight from Zante landed at Cardiff airport. Johnson isn't responsible for that. | | | |
| Is the lock down ending too soon? on 10:15 - Sep 1 with 1301 views | exhmrc1 |
| Is the lock down ending too soon? on 09:50 - Sep 1 by Scotia |
Cardiff airport is owned by Welsh Government. The flight from Zante landed at Cardiff airport. Johnson isn't responsible for that. |
Border control is not a devolved matter and as you previously stated Drakeford had no say over the matter. Air bridges are Johnson's policy that you have continually backed saying how they are safe as these countries have lower rates of coronavirus than ours. We are now seeing the truth of the policy you have been supporting. Time for you to come clean over this. You have been backing a policy saying it wasn't a problem but it has now been proved otherwise. 30 cases is over 1/8 of our figures in Wales and we dont know how many there are in English airports. Time to admit you were wrong all along and air bridges arent safe and our borders shouldn't have been opened. You keep saying you are not a Tory but have backed up Johnson and slated Drakeford over everything.
Here is one of your comments 3 weeks ago.
So we shouldn't allow people in to the country from other countries that have a lower rate of infection than the UK?
[Post edited 1 Sep 2020 10:18]
| | | |
| Is the lock down ending too soon? on 10:37 - Sep 1 with 1293 views | Scotia |
| Is the lock down ending too soon? on 10:15 - Sep 1 by exhmrc1 |
Border control is not a devolved matter and as you previously stated Drakeford had no say over the matter. Air bridges are Johnson's policy that you have continually backed saying how they are safe as these countries have lower rates of coronavirus than ours. We are now seeing the truth of the policy you have been supporting. Time for you to come clean over this. You have been backing a policy saying it wasn't a problem but it has now been proved otherwise. 30 cases is over 1/8 of our figures in Wales and we dont know how many there are in English airports. Time to admit you were wrong all along and air bridges arent safe and our borders shouldn't have been opened. You keep saying you are not a Tory but have backed up Johnson and slated Drakeford over everything.
Here is one of your comments 3 weeks ago.
So we shouldn't allow people in to the country from other countries that have a lower rate of infection than the UK?
[Post edited 1 Sep 2020 10:18]
|
What is the sense of quarantining someone coming from an area of lower infection than the UK? Of couse procedures should be enforced onboard the aircraft and TUI should be fined if protocol wasn't followed.
We can't "close" airports and borders, they are used for a lot more than just holidays and we need to make their use as safe as possible. Air bridges aren't perfect but seem a sensible option - the UK is far stricter than places like Germany, the cut off point of 20 cases per 100,000 is lower than the curent level in the UK. People have to make a choice as to whether to use them or not - I won't be this year but hope to early next Summer.
I don't know if you have been to Zante, it is one of my favourite Greek Islands, the times I have been there the tourists seem to be 80% British / Irish. Chances are the virus was imported to the island from the UK originally anyway, so those people who contracted it could easily have done so in the UK.
As I've said a few times - cases will increase as we move out of lockdown, we have to move out of lockdown, so we have to control these cases. We cannot eradicate the virus we have to live with it as safely as possible and strike a balance between how we can open society and control the virus.
Personally - I think we are slightly past that point, I am begininng to think "eat out to help out" was a way for hospitality to get some cash in before their next lock down. Of course they've had an extra month to generate cash over the border. | | | |
| Is the lock down ending too soon? on 10:54 - Sep 1 with 1283 views | Professor |
| Is the lock down ending too soon? on 22:49 - Aug 31 by Scotia |
I'd take a 15% effective covid vaccine now if it were available. We'd have to keep social distancing and treatment development, but it would be an improvement on the status quo. Especially considering covid is many times more dangerous than flu.
I haven't studied biology since A level, but my understanding is that influenza vius mutates quickly and significantly, so the vaccine needs to be a bit of a guess based on flu strains elsewhere in the world. Nevertheless it is clearly a benefit. My daughter and wife have had it each year, and if available I'll be getting it this year to help prevent me spread it to my parents.
Coranvirus don't mutate as quickly. The virus that causes covid 19 has mutated slightly but not to a degree that the vaccines currently being developed will necessarily be ineffective. As I understand the Oxford vaccine targets the covid 19 protein spike which hasn't changed since the virus was identified.
I don't get anti vaxers, they are the epitome of natural selection. If they weren't so dangerous and deluded in the current circumstances I'd be happy to let them crack on. |
Said I was not going to post, but will make an exception where purely science.
That's a pretty accurate summary Scotia. Paramyxoviruses like influenza are far less stable than coronaviruses. Add on top that there a multiple types (A and B mainly) of flu with over 120 variants of A before you add on mutation it shows the challenge of a flu vaccine. Here AFD is largely correct-it's a guess based on the data of circulating types, that selects a mix of A and B to make up the vaccine. Normally this works with 60% protection pretty normal (roughly 10,000 annual deaths), but when it goes wrong then protection is minimal which again AFD points out.
Where my relative confidence in a vaccine is based is that the spike protein is immunogenic, does not vary that much and is a proven target in reasonably successful veterinary vaccines for avian and pig coronaviruses. There is also a degree of confidence that all existing SARS Co V2 strains can be protected against ( https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/08/28/2008281117). Where AFD is also correct is that we can't be complacent and vaccines will need to be added to a control strategy that maintains much of what we do until we break transmission completely. Even then, eradication is highly unlikely. The other issue is protection is likely to be against disease and limited against infection-so we may need new variants of the vaccine annually or at least every few years.
Where AFD is incorrect is medicines to cure. We don't cure viral infections through pharmaceuticals, though we can reduce the viral levels and the amount of replication.
He cites HIV- HIV vaccines don't work. They are enveloped and have just one largely non-immunogenic receptor (gp120 which binds to the CD4 receptor), so targets are not there- coronaviruses are named because they are spiky-=have a crown-like appearance with plenty of surface target protein.
HIV therapeutics working reducing viral replication and load because HIV is a retrovirus or lentivirus. Whilst it has an RNA genome, unlike corona it does not use host machinery to replicate RNA genomes, it coverts its genome into DNA via an enzyme called reverse transcriptase. It becomes more incorporated into the host and used DNA replication-leading to a long term infection that depletes CD4 T cells and leads to massive immunosupression. HIV itself does not cause much disease, but not having an operational immune system leads to opportunistic infections (including invasive Salmonella-something we work on ) or cancers. The therapeutics (anti-retrovirals) work as they have a specific target in reverse transcriptase that we lack-so no real problems in affecting us. You can't target a corona in the same way as can lead to problems in inhibiting our own RNA synthesis.
The drugs used in Covid are more acting against severe inflammatory responses like cytokine storms-like dexamethasone, though some anti-virals help. HCQ has no real evidence of success, other than anecdotal or discredited work such as Didier Raoult. I am led to believe there is a large Cochrane systematic review of all evidence which will essentially say the risk outweighs any benefits of HCQ due in October. Same with ivermectin to a large extent, though there is a possibility both may have a mild prophylactic effect. Recruitment to trials is proving problematical, although these are well-funded by Wellcome and Gates. | | | |
| Is the lock down ending too soon? on 11:23 - Sep 1 with 1272 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Is the lock down ending too soon? on 22:49 - Aug 31 by Scotia |
I'd take a 15% effective covid vaccine now if it were available. We'd have to keep social distancing and treatment development, but it would be an improvement on the status quo. Especially considering covid is many times more dangerous than flu.
I haven't studied biology since A level, but my understanding is that influenza vius mutates quickly and significantly, so the vaccine needs to be a bit of a guess based on flu strains elsewhere in the world. Nevertheless it is clearly a benefit. My daughter and wife have had it each year, and if available I'll be getting it this year to help prevent me spread it to my parents.
Coranvirus don't mutate as quickly. The virus that causes covid 19 has mutated slightly but not to a degree that the vaccines currently being developed will necessarily be ineffective. As I understand the Oxford vaccine targets the covid 19 protein spike which hasn't changed since the virus was identified.
I don't get anti vaxers, they are the epitome of natural selection. If they weren't so dangerous and deluded in the current circumstances I'd be happy to let them crack on. |
You missed the whole point of my post, because of the total concentration on Vaccines the medicines that work to reduce symptoms and death are being ignored.
Vaccines + the right medicine will do an even better job. | | | |
| Is the lock down ending too soon? on 11:29 - Sep 1 with 1268 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Is the lock down ending too soon? on 10:54 - Sep 1 by Professor |
Said I was not going to post, but will make an exception where purely science.
That's a pretty accurate summary Scotia. Paramyxoviruses like influenza are far less stable than coronaviruses. Add on top that there a multiple types (A and B mainly) of flu with over 120 variants of A before you add on mutation it shows the challenge of a flu vaccine. Here AFD is largely correct-it's a guess based on the data of circulating types, that selects a mix of A and B to make up the vaccine. Normally this works with 60% protection pretty normal (roughly 10,000 annual deaths), but when it goes wrong then protection is minimal which again AFD points out.
Where my relative confidence in a vaccine is based is that the spike protein is immunogenic, does not vary that much and is a proven target in reasonably successful veterinary vaccines for avian and pig coronaviruses. There is also a degree of confidence that all existing SARS Co V2 strains can be protected against ( https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/08/28/2008281117). Where AFD is also correct is that we can't be complacent and vaccines will need to be added to a control strategy that maintains much of what we do until we break transmission completely. Even then, eradication is highly unlikely. The other issue is protection is likely to be against disease and limited against infection-so we may need new variants of the vaccine annually or at least every few years.
Where AFD is incorrect is medicines to cure. We don't cure viral infections through pharmaceuticals, though we can reduce the viral levels and the amount of replication.
He cites HIV- HIV vaccines don't work. They are enveloped and have just one largely non-immunogenic receptor (gp120 which binds to the CD4 receptor), so targets are not there- coronaviruses are named because they are spiky-=have a crown-like appearance with plenty of surface target protein.
HIV therapeutics working reducing viral replication and load because HIV is a retrovirus or lentivirus. Whilst it has an RNA genome, unlike corona it does not use host machinery to replicate RNA genomes, it coverts its genome into DNA via an enzyme called reverse transcriptase. It becomes more incorporated into the host and used DNA replication-leading to a long term infection that depletes CD4 T cells and leads to massive immunosupression. HIV itself does not cause much disease, but not having an operational immune system leads to opportunistic infections (including invasive Salmonella-something we work on ) or cancers. The therapeutics (anti-retrovirals) work as they have a specific target in reverse transcriptase that we lack-so no real problems in affecting us. You can't target a corona in the same way as can lead to problems in inhibiting our own RNA synthesis.
The drugs used in Covid are more acting against severe inflammatory responses like cytokine storms-like dexamethasone, though some anti-virals help. HCQ has no real evidence of success, other than anecdotal or discredited work such as Didier Raoult. I am led to believe there is a large Cochrane systematic review of all evidence which will essentially say the risk outweighs any benefits of HCQ due in October. Same with ivermectin to a large extent, though there is a possibility both may have a mild prophylactic effect. Recruitment to trials is proving problematical, although these are well-funded by Wellcome and Gates. |
I suggest that you actually watch the Dr Coleman video, you know the one a poster called a right wing source.
Maybe, just maybe you will learn something, he certainly did.
If not from that then maybe from this website.
https://c19study.com/
Your ignorance on HCQ is embarassing.
ps what I really fail to understand is that you are so against medicines that reduce death rates by 30% but endorse a vaccine that migh only save 15%.
They do not need to be given in exclusion of vaccines and are available NOW.
Plus we already have documented cases of multiple infections of the same patients by different COVID-19 strains. [Post edited 1 Sep 2020 11:35]
| | | |
| Is the lock down ending too soon? on 11:40 - Sep 1 with 1258 views | exhmrc1 |
| Is the lock down ending too soon? on 10:37 - Sep 1 by Scotia |
What is the sense of quarantining someone coming from an area of lower infection than the UK? Of couse procedures should be enforced onboard the aircraft and TUI should be fined if protocol wasn't followed.
We can't "close" airports and borders, they are used for a lot more than just holidays and we need to make their use as safe as possible. Air bridges aren't perfect but seem a sensible option - the UK is far stricter than places like Germany, the cut off point of 20 cases per 100,000 is lower than the curent level in the UK. People have to make a choice as to whether to use them or not - I won't be this year but hope to early next Summer.
I don't know if you have been to Zante, it is one of my favourite Greek Islands, the times I have been there the tourists seem to be 80% British / Irish. Chances are the virus was imported to the island from the UK originally anyway, so those people who contracted it could easily have done so in the UK.
As I've said a few times - cases will increase as we move out of lockdown, we have to move out of lockdown, so we have to control these cases. We cannot eradicate the virus we have to live with it as safely as possible and strike a balance between how we can open society and control the virus.
Personally - I think we are slightly past that point, I am begininng to think "eat out to help out" was a way for hospitality to get some cash in before their next lock down. Of course they've had an extra month to generate cash over the border. |
The fact is 7 entered one flight with the virus. Probably the same on others. It has been brought back from a foreign so called low virus country and doing what you suggest has been the cause.
Johnson is now thinking of adding Portugal to the air bridges. Somewhere with triple the Welsh rate.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/coronavirus/portugal-coronavirus-quarantine-retur | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Is the lock down ending too soon? on 11:53 - Sep 1 with 1251 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Is the lock down ending too soon? on 11:40 - Sep 1 by exhmrc1 |
The fact is 7 entered one flight with the virus. Probably the same on others. It has been brought back from a foreign so called low virus country and doing what you suggest has been the cause.
Johnson is now thinking of adding Portugal to the air bridges. Somewhere with triple the Welsh rate.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/coronavirus/portugal-coronavirus-quarantine-retur |
I think the total is 16 tested positive. | | | |
| Is the lock down ending too soon? on 12:03 - Sep 1 with 1247 views | Professor |
| Is the lock down ending too soon? on 11:29 - Sep 1 by A_Fans_Dad |
I suggest that you actually watch the Dr Coleman video, you know the one a poster called a right wing source.
Maybe, just maybe you will learn something, he certainly did.
If not from that then maybe from this website.
https://c19study.com/
Your ignorance on HCQ is embarassing.
ps what I really fail to understand is that you are so against medicines that reduce death rates by 30% but endorse a vaccine that migh only save 15%.
They do not need to be given in exclusion of vaccines and are available NOW.
Plus we already have documented cases of multiple infections of the same patients by different COVID-19 strains. [Post edited 1 Sep 2020 11:35]
|
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/06/three-big-studies-dim-hopes-hydroxychlor
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2020388
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-07-lopinavir-hydroxychloroquine-covid-.html
https://theconversation.com/why-hydroxychloroquine-and-chloroquine-dont-block-co
Anyone can cut and paste, Perhaps you should look at the website you posted more closely as multiple negative trials on there.
I take it you still don't know what a systematic or Cochrane Review is?
HCQ has no evidence as an effective treatment around SARS Co V2. It may yet have some pre-exposure prophylactic effect (as it does for malaria) but this is not certain.
I happy to use treatment if it works like dexamethasone and other re-purposed drugs. It remains vital. There are lots of studies and drugs such as tocilizumab used for arthritis may be helpful but are a lot safer than HCQ. I still hold hope for immune-based therapy like interferon beta and even passive transfer of antibodies.
The New England Journal of Medicine Article is interesting as it states that the use of HCQ is not driven by science but social media and political grandstanding.
A point worth raising is most of the serious infectious diseases in the world lack vaccines (HIV, Malaria, Trypansosmiaisis, Leishmania. invasive salmonellosis) or, in the case of TB, the vaccine has lost efficacy due to pathogen evolution. (since BCG is close to its centenary it is not surprising). Once deadly and widespread diseases like smallpox and polio have effective vaccines -very effective in these cases as either eradicated or virtually so. Vaccines work, are normally safer than drugs and most importantly, prevent, not treat. [Post edited 1 Sep 2020 12:07]
| | | |
| Is the lock down ending too soon? on 12:06 - Sep 1 with 1245 views | Professor |
| Is the lock down ending too soon? on 11:23 - Sep 1 by A_Fans_Dad |
You missed the whole point of my post, because of the total concentration on Vaccines the medicines that work to reduce symptoms and death are being ignored.
Vaccines + the right medicine will do an even better job. |
Vaccines + prevention of transmission + effective treatment will work better still.
You are, as I posted previously, absolutely correct in saying that vaccination will not be a panacea. It does tend to be the best tool we have, but cannot be used alone. | | | |
| Is the lock down ending too soon? on 12:24 - Sep 1 with 1229 views | Scotia |
| Is the lock down ending too soon? on 11:23 - Sep 1 by A_Fans_Dad |
You missed the whole point of my post, because of the total concentration on Vaccines the medicines that work to reduce symptoms and death are being ignored.
Vaccines + the right medicine will do an even better job. |
Other medicines aren't being ignored though are they? They are being thoroughly investigated, where do you think Dexamethasone came from? If HCQ, Ivermectin or Doxycycline worked and were safe they would be being used extensively. I wish they did but they don't.
Seeing as the leading exponent of the use of Ivermection is a gastroenterologist and respiratory and vascular experts seem to think the dosage required would be dangerous I think I'll listen to them. Covid is not a digestive disease it is a respiratory disease with a vascular element. | | | |
| Is the lock down ending too soon? on 12:38 - Sep 1 with 1220 views | Professor |
| Is the lock down ending too soon? on 12:24 - Sep 1 by Scotia |
Other medicines aren't being ignored though are they? They are being thoroughly investigated, where do you think Dexamethasone came from? If HCQ, Ivermectin or Doxycycline worked and were safe they would be being used extensively. I wish they did but they don't.
Seeing as the leading exponent of the use of Ivermection is a gastroenterologist and respiratory and vascular experts seem to think the dosage required would be dangerous I think I'll listen to them. Covid is not a digestive disease it is a respiratory disease with a vascular element. |
Not at all. The in vitro screening is picking up candidates.
Translation into use is more a problem as respiratory tract is difficult to reach pharmacologically relevant levels of drugs. So HCQ works in lupus to reduce inflammation as mainly systemic, but does not help much on the surface of airways. There are better candidates out there. Shame that it was promoted so much as almost certainly diverted efforts to the wrong drug. I am sure there will be some evidence to contradict this appearing soon. | | | |
| Is the lock down ending too soon? on 12:38 - Sep 1 with 1219 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Is the lock down ending too soon? on 12:24 - Sep 1 by Scotia |
Other medicines aren't being ignored though are they? They are being thoroughly investigated, where do you think Dexamethasone came from? If HCQ, Ivermectin or Doxycycline worked and were safe they would be being used extensively. I wish they did but they don't.
Seeing as the leading exponent of the use of Ivermection is a gastroenterologist and respiratory and vascular experts seem to think the dosage required would be dangerous I think I'll listen to them. Covid is not a digestive disease it is a respiratory disease with a vascular element. |
Why don't you also educate yourself on HCQ when given correctly and look at the various links I posted.
Or is it too much effort? | | | |
| Is the lock down ending too soon? on 12:42 - Sep 1 with 1218 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Is the lock down ending too soon? on 12:38 - Sep 1 by Professor |
Not at all. The in vitro screening is picking up candidates.
Translation into use is more a problem as respiratory tract is difficult to reach pharmacologically relevant levels of drugs. So HCQ works in lupus to reduce inflammation as mainly systemic, but does not help much on the surface of airways. There are better candidates out there. Shame that it was promoted so much as almost certainly diverted efforts to the wrong drug. I am sure there will be some evidence to contradict this appearing soon. |
So I provide links and you can't even be bothered to look at them.
Stay ignorant, but don't post contradictory claims until you have read & digested them. | | | |
| Is the lock down ending too soon? on 13:03 - Sep 1 with 1206 views | Scotia |
| Is the lock down ending too soon? on 12:38 - Sep 1 by A_Fans_Dad |
Why don't you also educate yourself on HCQ when given correctly and look at the various links I posted.
Or is it too much effort? |
I don't see why I should bother after previous experience to be honest, becasue you clearly don't. You posted a link and said something like said some thing like "Austrailian GP's are now prescribing Ivermection becasue it cures Covid, the lockdown is over Hooray. My loopy links were correct all along. Look how much my links show you don't know what you are talking about Prof!" last week.
I was interested, so I looked and Quelle surprise. That isn't what it said at all. It was a Dr (who was not a specialist in a relevant field) asking Austrailian GP's to email him to find out how to bend the rules. I wonder how many did?
And let's be honest that isn't the only example is it? I can remember back in March you posted a link saying Spanish Dr's had demonstrtaed HCQ was the best treatment they had used, on reading that link something like 80% of them thought it was of no benefit whatsover.
I have read a bit about HCQ and the weight of evidence is clearly stacked against it. If it worked we'd be using it, as we are with Dexamethasone.
You've been championing it's use since day one of the pandemic, you are looking to prove it works and not objectively. As I have said I wish it did work, even slightly, but it really doesn't seem to. | | | |
| Is the lock down ending too soon? on 13:05 - Sep 1 with 1204 views | controversial_jack |
| Is the lock down ending too soon? on 11:29 - Sep 1 by A_Fans_Dad |
I suggest that you actually watch the Dr Coleman video, you know the one a poster called a right wing source.
Maybe, just maybe you will learn something, he certainly did.
If not from that then maybe from this website.
https://c19study.com/
Your ignorance on HCQ is embarassing.
ps what I really fail to understand is that you are so against medicines that reduce death rates by 30% but endorse a vaccine that migh only save 15%.
They do not need to be given in exclusion of vaccines and are available NOW.
Plus we already have documented cases of multiple infections of the same patients by different COVID-19 strains. [Post edited 1 Sep 2020 11:35]
|
There hasn't been a multiple getting reinfected, a tiny handful at most.It's inconclusive as errors could have been made | | | |
| Is the lock down ending too soon? on 13:33 - Sep 1 with 1200 views | Scotia |
| Is the lock down ending too soon? on 13:05 - Sep 1 by controversial_jack |
There hasn't been a multiple getting reinfected, a tiny handful at most.It's inconclusive as errors could have been made |
I think the only particulally "interesting" reinfection is the guy from Hong Kong who'd flown back from Europe, and was asymptomatic after being hospitalised during the first bout.
As I understand another one appeared to be reinfected within a month - and if that was a major issue we would have seen it more frequently than just once in 25 million cases. Something fishy there!
Another reinfection involved a (I think Italian) woman who had an auto-immune disorder.
As you say only a handful of cases so no cause for alarm yet. | | | |
| Is the lock down ending too soon? on 13:39 - Sep 1 with 1196 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Is the lock down ending too soon? on 13:33 - Sep 1 by Scotia |
I think the only particulally "interesting" reinfection is the guy from Hong Kong who'd flown back from Europe, and was asymptomatic after being hospitalised during the first bout.
As I understand another one appeared to be reinfected within a month - and if that was a major issue we would have seen it more frequently than just once in 25 million cases. Something fishy there!
Another reinfection involved a (I think Italian) woman who had an auto-immune disorder.
As you say only a handful of cases so no cause for alarm yet. |
https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/world/2020/08/25/2-european-patients- | | | |
| Is the lock down ending too soon? on 13:50 - Sep 1 with 1186 views | controversial_jack |
That may well be the case, but a handful in 25 million cases is not cause for alarm yet | | | |
| Is the lock down ending too soon? on 14:01 - Sep 1 with 1179 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Is the lock down ending too soon? on 13:50 - Sep 1 by controversial_jack |
That may well be the case, but a handful in 25 million cases is not cause for alarm yet |
I agree, but it could be just like those with no symptoms, who knows how many there are. | | | |
| Is the lock down ending too soon? on 14:02 - Sep 1 with 1177 views | Professor |
| Is the lock down ending too soon? on 12:42 - Sep 1 by A_Fans_Dad |
So I provide links and you can't even be bothered to look at them.
Stay ignorant, but don't post contradictory claims until you have read & digested them. |
Now you are making yourself look daft. I specifically commented that the website showed both positive and negative outcomes. Along with safety studies and in vitro trials. It’s a bit like part of the process of evidence gathering for a systematic review. | | | |
| Is the lock down ending too soon? on 14:12 - Sep 1 with 1171 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Is the lock down ending too soon? on 12:03 - Sep 1 by Professor |
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/06/three-big-studies-dim-hopes-hydroxychlor
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2020388
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-07-lopinavir-hydroxychloroquine-covid-.html
https://theconversation.com/why-hydroxychloroquine-and-chloroquine-dont-block-co
Anyone can cut and paste, Perhaps you should look at the website you posted more closely as multiple negative trials on there.
I take it you still don't know what a systematic or Cochrane Review is?
HCQ has no evidence as an effective treatment around SARS Co V2. It may yet have some pre-exposure prophylactic effect (as it does for malaria) but this is not certain.
I happy to use treatment if it works like dexamethasone and other re-purposed drugs. It remains vital. There are lots of studies and drugs such as tocilizumab used for arthritis may be helpful but are a lot safer than HCQ. I still hold hope for immune-based therapy like interferon beta and even passive transfer of antibodies.
The New England Journal of Medicine Article is interesting as it states that the use of HCQ is not driven by science but social media and political grandstanding.
A point worth raising is most of the serious infectious diseases in the world lack vaccines (HIV, Malaria, Trypansosmiaisis, Leishmania. invasive salmonellosis) or, in the case of TB, the vaccine has lost efficacy due to pathogen evolution. (since BCG is close to its centenary it is not surprising). Once deadly and widespread diseases like smallpox and polio have effective vaccines -very effective in these cases as either eradicated or virtually so. Vaccines work, are normally safer than drugs and most importantly, prevent, not treat. [Post edited 1 Sep 2020 12:07]
|
The count is 58 positive studies, 13 inconclusive studies and 21 negative studies, including 1 for dexamethasone.
But you have to read the study details to clarify the classifications.
The negative studies include the 6 studies already shown to use the wrong doses, the wrong stages and comorbidities not taken in to consideration.
The 3 studies you quote in your first link are among those 6.
Why would you quote studies that give patients potentially deadly doses 4 times the recommended dose? | | | |
| Is the lock down ending too soon? on 14:32 - Sep 1 with 1163 views | Professor |
| Is the lock down ending too soon? on 14:12 - Sep 1 by A_Fans_Dad |
The count is 58 positive studies, 13 inconclusive studies and 21 negative studies, including 1 for dexamethasone.
But you have to read the study details to clarify the classifications.
The negative studies include the 6 studies already shown to use the wrong doses, the wrong stages and comorbidities not taken in to consideration.
The 3 studies you quote in your first link are among those 6.
Why would you quote studies that give patients potentially deadly doses 4 times the recommended dose? |
I am not repeating the reasons. Have said them multiple times but clearly don’t get that the levels that are needed in the lungs are much greater doses.
This is a news article but explains well why HCQ
As a therapeutic has been a problem and his the ‘hype’ has probably prevented any meaningful studies as a prophylactic . It quotes Paul Garner of LSTM who is Professor if evidence based medicine and leading the Cochrane Review. He says there is no evidence of benefit. Just to add LSTM and the University are independent of each other. LSTM is the leading centre for this type of review. [Post edited 1 Sep 2020 14:35]
| | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
