The Coronavirus thread

[videtur quam contuor]

This information came from a Youtube presentation, apparently. This appears to be the sum total of the results of a non blinded, non registered experiment with 24 patients. I would not call this a trial by U. S. standards. It is a study. The following is from Medscape, a generally reliable provider of medical information:

 

Could the old generic malaria drug hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil, Sanofi-Aventis, among others), which is also used for the treatment of rheumatic disease, be an essential treatment for COVID-19?

This hypothesis, put forward by some, including Professor Didier Raoult of the IHU Méditerranée Infection in Marseille, was dismissed by other eminent infectious disease specialists and dismissed as fake news recently by the Ministry of Health.

Yet it resurfaced yesterday with the presentation on YouTube by Prof Raoult of positive results in a non-randomised, unblinded trial of 24 patients.

This follows encouraging in vitro results obtained by a Chinese team led by Xueting Yao, from Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China, which were published online by the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases on March 9th. However, the data were deemed insufficient by the infection community to recommend the compound as a treatment.

 

Moreover, chloroquine is not listed among the four treatments studied as part of the recently launched European clinical trial piloted by Inserm, which includes 3200 severe hospitalised patients, including 800 French patients.

Chloroquine was ruled out due to the risk of interactions with other medications for common comorbidities in infected patients, and because of possible adverse effects in patients undergoing resuscitation.

The Marseille Study

The European Union Clinical Trials Register shows that the Marseille study was accepted on 5th March by the National Medicines Safety Agency (ANSM). It could include up to 25 COVID-19 positive patients, comprising five aged 12–17 years, 10 aged 18–64 years, and 10 more aged 65 years or over.

While the data have not yet been published, and should therefore be interpreted with caution, this non-randomised, unblinded study showed a strong reduction in viral load with hydroxychloroquine.

After 6 days, the percentage of patients testing positive for COVID-19 who received hydroxychloroquine fell to 25% versus 90% for those who did not receive the treatment (a group of untreated COVID-19 patients from Nice and Avignon).

In addition, comparing untreated patients, those receiving hydroxychloroquine and those given hydroxychloroquine plus the antibiotic azithromycin, the results showed there was "a spectacular reduction in the number of positive cases" with the combination therapy, said Prof Raoult.

At 6 days, among patients given combination therapy, the percentage of cases still carrying SRAS-CoV-2 was no more than 5%.

 

Azithromycin was added because it is known to be effective against complications from bacterial lung disease but also because it has been shown to be effective in the laboratory against a large number of viruses, the infectious disease specialist explained.

 

"Everyone who died from COVID-19 were still carriers of coronavirus. To no longer have the virus changes the prognosis," Prof Raoult said.

 

More detailed results of the study have been submitted for publication in the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents.

 

Study Splits Infectious Disease Community

The announcement of positive results from this small study split medical opinion.

[kermit]

So far it appears that at least five senators may have been trading based on information from a closed door briefing about Corona virus on January 24th

Senator Richard Burr

Senator Kelly Loefner

Senator Dianne Feinstein

Senator Ron Johnson

Senator Jim Inhofe

 

Sounds like they all felt the risk was high enough to sell stocks, but not high enough to communicate that risk to their constituents or make sure the federal government had enough test kits to limit virus spread.

 

 

Edited March 20, 2020 by kermit

[cltheel.sdl]

28 minutes ago, kermit said:

So far it appears that at least five senators may have been trading based on information from a closed door briefing about Corona virus on January 24th

Senator Richard Burr

Senator Kelly Loefner

Senator Dianne Feinstein

Senator Ron Johnson

Senator Jim Inhofe

 

Sounds like they all felt the risk was high enough to sell stocks, but not high enough to communicate that risk to their constituents or make sure the federal government had enough test kits to limit virus spread.

 

 

Not a great look!  But hey, at least we were well-prepared for this disaster!  

[videtur quam contuor]

@lachlan on his twitter feed takes each of those in turn to examine the published reports of their transactions. Some are benign and others less so.

My opinion is that a member of congress should make NO trades while in office. In a blind trust, likely acceptable. Otherwise, avoid it.

[videtur quam contuor]

Speaking as one who had a head start in life compared to many here I recommend calling your grandparents ofrfamily members over age 70. They will recall the age of disease now lost to those younger. Ask them about being sequestered while contagious. Ask them about community fear when an epidemic of polio was about. Families with children prohibited from visiting an uninfected community. Ask about the our childhood readers in school which illustrated people in an iron lung, paralyzed for life and that they must follow the commands of their parents about playing in the yard and going nowhere near any other children. All summer lost, no parks, no pools. Ask them the memories from their parents about the glorious moment when a vaccine appeared. 

Ask them about TB and how the infected were shunned and forced to move away from the healthy when possible. Even if your parents or grandparents came shortly after this dismal period the stories from their parents likely are remembered. An education never forgotten.

 My sister had pertussis (whooping cough) and the doctor came to the house and tacked a placard on the front door that announced QUARANTINE-WHOOPING COUGH in letters large enough to see from the street, courtesy of the county health department. Can you even imagine that today?

Quarantine then was common for those who had the disease and those who were close to that person. The difference now is that we do not know who has the disease. Until widespread testing and retesting is available extreme social distancing is the only way to operate.

 

Edited March 20, 2020 by tarhoosier

[urbanlover568]

Florida keys to evacuate non-residents by Sunday.

[urbanlover568]

2,000 new cases overnight in NYC. 

[gman430]

New York now taking action like California: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/20/new-york-gov-cuomo-orders-100percent-of-non-essential-businesses-to-work-from-home.html

[urbanlover568]

19 minutes ago, gman430 said:

New York now taking action like California: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/20/new-york-gov-cuomo-orders-100percent-of-non-essential-businesses-to-work-from-home.html

More like "recommends". Zero police enforcement.

[gman430]

1 minute ago, urbanlover568 said:

More like "recommends". Zero police enforcement.

There is zero police enforcement for both states with this. 

[urbanlover568]

Just now, gman430 said:

There is zero police enforcement for both states with this. 

Yup

[tozmervo]

It would compel a lot of stubborn companies to allow work-from-home. I know of some businesses that are basically not going that way "until the government tells us to."

[gman430]

9 minutes ago, tozmervo said:

It would compel a lot of stubborn companies to allow work-from-home. I know of some businesses that are basically not going that way "until the government tells us to."

BMW and Boeing being two of them here in SC.

[kermit]

On a lighter note:

Now that most of us have done the work from home thing for a few days, is there anyone still out there who prefers this to an actual workplace? Its only been a week for me but I NEVER want to do another virtual meeting EVER again. I had a nice chat with the UPS man as I 'attended' my noon meeting from my front porch, and I missed chunks of the meeting due to lawnmower noise in the neighborhood. I could not go inside because  at the same time my daughter was in a Zoomed class upstairs and my wife was in a Webex meeting of some sort in the dining room.  I am mostly tired of hearing other people in meetings (with or without headphones)

Honestly I think there will be less telecommuting after this is over than there was before it started.

On the other hand, I have discovered that I am better at cooking from home than I remembered, my restaurant visits may be remain lower than my pre-plague rate.

I do miss draught beer!

Edited March 20, 2020 by kermit

[a2theb]

34 minutes ago, kermit said:

On a lighter note:

Now that most of us have done the work from home thing for a few days, ks there anyone still out there who prefers this to an actual workplace? I NEVER want to do another virtual meeting EVER again. I had a nice chat with the UPS man as I 'attended' my noon meeting from my front porch (I was unable to respond to a few things because of lawnmower noise in the neighborhood). At the same time my daughter was in a Zoomed class (upstairs) and my wife was in a Webex meeting of some sort in the dining room.

Honestly I think there will be less telecommuting after this is over than there was before it started.

On the other hand, I have discovered that I am better at cooking from home than I remembered, my restaurant visits may be remain lower than my pre-plague rate.

I do miss draught beer!

I have been full time WFH unless traveling (1-2x a month) for about 2 years now. I have gotten used to it but people act like I am the luckiest guy in the world and don't realize it can get pretty brutal when you don't leave the house Sunday-Thursday (mostly during the winter) and your only human contact is your wife.

 

Now that people are getting a taste of it, they are realizing its not all its cracked up to be.

Edited March 20, 2020 by a2theb

[mad_park]

45 minutes ago, gman430 said:

BMW and Boeing being two of them here in SC.

For those two wouldn't that mean shutting down the assembly line vs "working from home"? 

[tozmervo]

45 minutes ago, kermit said:

On a lighter note:

Now that most of us have done the work from home thing for a few days, ks there anyone still out there who prefers this to an actual workplace? I NEVER want to do another virtual meeting EVER again. I had a nice chat with the UPS man as I 'attended' my noon meeting from my front porch (I was unable to respond to a few things because of lawnmower noise in the neighborhood). At the same time my daughter was in a Zoomed class (upstairs) and my wife was in a Webex meeting of some sort in the dining room.

Honestly I think there will be less telecommuting after this is over than there was before it started.

On the other hand, I have discovered that I am better at cooking from home than I remembered, my restaurant visits may be remain lower than my pre-plague rate.

I do miss draught beer!

Speaking from the standpoint of the architecture industry, we've always had a balance between in-person and virtual meetings. For purely technical discussions, virtual does just fine. But when we're talking design and planning, it is SO SO SO much easier in person. It's easier to engage, read body language, course correct, etc. This becomes exponentially true the more people that are in the meeting. We had a 20+ person virtual planning meeting yesterday and it bordered on miserable for everyone involved. It was probably the least productive meeting I've had in years.

[urbanlover568]

13 minutes ago, tozmervo said:

Speaking from the standpoint of the architecture industry, we've always had a balance between in-person and virtual meetings. For purely technical discussions, virtual does just fine. But when we're talking design and planning, it is SO SO SO much easier in person. It's easier to engage, read body language, course correct, etc. This becomes exponentially true the more people that are in the meeting. We had a 20+ person virtual planning meeting yesterday and it bordered on miserable for everyone involved. It was probably the least productive meeting I've had in years.

Which software are you using? Teams and Meet is really good and can scale to those many people in a meeting.

[gman430]

37 minutes ago, mad_park said:

For those two wouldn't that mean shutting down the assembly line vs "working from home"? 

Yep. The government will shut down a small restaurant but not manufacturing plants that have thousands of people in them. Makes no sense to me.

[tozmervo]

It's not really the software scalability, it's more the practicality of having a useful conversation virtually. With more people, it's hard to keep people from talking over each other, some people don't talk at all, etc. There are human dynamics that are just easier to manage in person. 

[rjp212]

34 minutes ago, gman430 said:

Yep. The government will shut down a small restaurant but not manufacturing plants that have thousands of people in them. Makes no sense to me.

It’s a lot easier to practice social distancing in a plant than a restaurant/bar.  Restaurants pack people in, people touch everything and each other.  Especially when people are drinking. 

[SouthEndCLT811]

1 hour ago, a2theb said:

I have been full time WFH unless traveling (1-2x a month) for about 2 years now. I have gotten used to it but people act like I am the luckiest guy in the world and don't realize it can get pretty brutal when you don't leave the house Sunday-Thursday (mostly during the winter) and your only human contact is your wife.

 

Now that people are getting a taste of it, they are realizing its not all its cracked up to be.

Haha this was all too familiar I think we have similar work from home experience

[elrodvt]

45 minutes ago, gman430 said:

Yep. The government will shut down a small restaurant but not manufacturing plants that have thousands of people in them. Makes no sense to me.

Yeah good point. The only thing I can figure was they're potential sites for switching to making ventilators?

[elrodvt]

55 minutes ago, tozmervo said:

It's not really the software scalability, it's more the practicality of having a useful conversation virtually. With more people, it's hard to keep people from talking over each other, some people don't talk at all, etc. There are human dynamics that are just easier to manage in person. 

I've worked from home 9 years. Our team is international and it actually works better to have everyone on the same footing vs. treating our colleagues in India or Asia as second class. Everyone has an individual camera and mic. I agree with the body language issue but you have to learn to speak up or hit the road. If you're more or less pitching or selling to customer without that ethos though it's not tenable.

Edited March 20, 2020 by elrodvt

[gman430]

17 minutes ago, elrodvt said:

Yeah good point. The only thing I can figure was they're potential sites for switching to making ventilators?

I could definitely see that as one of the reasonings.