CDC quietly deletes hydroxychloroquine guidance as study hyped by Trump comes into question

[OriZ 3,157]

2 hours ago, Voice of Reason said:

I like to look at both, just gives me a sense of what errors there may be from day to day.  And they are both off from each other from time to time, but it usually self-corrects within a day.

They seem to pretty consistently have a ~1,000 case difference with China numbers these days 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

38 minutes ago, OriZ said:

They seem to pretty consistently have a ~1,000 case difference with China numbers these days 

I'll look.  Honestly, I quit looking at the China numbers weeks ago.  They are meaningless.  When they ordered 5,000 urns (for just one city, and 200,000 body bags, I pretty much just gave up on their reported numbers.

[millefleur 5,047]

27 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

I'll look.  Honestly, I quit looking at the China numbers weeks ago.  They are meaningless.  When they ordered 5,000 urns (for just one city, and 200,000 body bags, I pretty much just gave up on their reported numbers.

I also wonder about China's long-standing one child policy with the seemingly many people who were born under that as the second (illegal) child and were never officially documented with the government as citizens because they've been undocumented their entire lives. If one of them were to get the virus and/or die, one can assume it was't counted in the statistics. Supposedly there are millions of "ghost citizens" in China never documented or registered because they were born under the one child policy.

 

 

[TBoneTX 45,963]

23 minutes ago, millefleur said:

If one of them were to get the virus and/or die, one can assume it was't counted in the statistics.

Hadn't even thought of that.

[millefleur 5,047]

2 minutes ago, TBoneTX said:

Hadn't even thought of that.

Supposedly there are minimum 13 million or so of them according to a 2010 census.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/29/end-of-chinas-one-child-policy-too-late-many-orphaned-parents-illegal-second-children

 

"The group of “illegal” children living in the shadows of Chinese society are vulnerable to many kinds of abuse as a result. According to a 2010 census there are at least 13 million. But experts believe two or three times as many may have gone unregistered, because of fear of government reprisals."

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

6 hours ago, millefleur said:

I also wonder about China's long-standing one child policy with the seemingly many people who were born under that as the second (illegal) child and were never officially documented with the government as citizens because they've been undocumented their entire lives. If one of them were to get the virus and/or die, one can assume it was't counted in the statistics. Supposedly there are millions of "ghost citizens" in China never documented or registered because they were born under the one child policy.

 

 

The rule only applied in urban areas (to Chinese citizens), and not to minorities.  Also think it went away in 2014?  But you raise an interesting point.  Almost as interesting as why they needed 5,000 cremation urns in Wuhan, and 200,000 body bags overall when the death toll was less than 4,000. 🙄

Edited April 13, 2020 by Voice of Reason

[OriZ 3,157]

On 4/12/2020 at 12:43 AM, Steeleballz said:

 

  Theoretically maybe, for the general population. I'm not sure how many people actually know their blood type though. 

Crazy idea(totally impractical but humor me):

 

1. confirm this theory

2. let type O people get back to their normal lives first. That means work, entertainment, anything.

3. They will infect one another without many severe cases and create half of what's needed for herd immunity(as they are around 40% of global population, this will mean the economy can keep going).

4. Remove restrictions from the rest. As 40% of the population is already immune, we won't have as many asymptomatic spreaders who infect anyone but type O(which they already did in #2 and recovered thus already have the antibodies).

 

Several obvious reasons why this could never work: 

 

1. Not everyone knows their blood type

2. You can't create such inequality(some will work and some won't) based on blood type

3. We don't know for sure how severe they will actually get it

 

But, anyway, was a neat idea for 2 seconds. Also, seems like african americans have more people with this blood type than the general population on a percentage basis. Yet, about 70% of severe cases appear to be in african americans, due to other risk factors they have that the general population doesn't. Doesn't this kind of hurt this theory?

[OriZ 3,157]

Found this to be interesting:

 

https://www.vox.com/covid-19-coronavirus-treatment-prevention-cure-vaccines/2020/4/11/21217693/coronavirus-treatments-hydroxychloroquine-remdesivir-side-effects-covid-19-studies

[Steeleballz 7,550]

11 hours ago, OriZ said:

Crazy idea(totally impractical but humor me):

 

1. confirm this theory

2. let type O people get back to their normal lives first. That means work, entertainment, anything.

3. They will infect one another without many severe cases and create half of what's needed for herd immunity(as they are around 40% of global population, this will mean the economy can keep going).

4. Remove restrictions from the rest. As 40% of the population is already immune, we won't have as many asymptomatic spreaders who infect anyone but type O(which they already did in #2 and recovered thus already have the antibodies).

 

Several obvious reasons why this could never work: 

 

1. Not everyone knows their blood type

2. You can't create such inequality(some will work and some won't) based on blood type

3. We don't know for sure how severe they will actually get it

 

But, anyway, was a neat idea for 2 seconds. Also, seems like african americans have more people with this blood type than the general population on a percentage basis. Yet, about 70% of severe cases appear to be in african americans, due to other risk factors they have that the general population doesn't. Doesn't this kind of hurt this theory?

 

   Just looking at the stats, I think most people don't have enough anti-A antibody to stop the virus (assuming that is even what is happening). They probably need more research to confirm that. It's probably more like an observable trend where enough group O people get a lower dose of virus, and end up with milder symptoms, and/or recover faster. In a large population group you would see that difference in the numbers, but as individuals, I think there are still too many risk factors that any one person could have that make even a lower viral dose dangerous.  I imagine pre-existing conditions would still end up being a more significant determinant of illness severity than any protection conferred by blood group.

 

 I think they are close enough to doing antibody testing to use that for getting people back to work if they want to go that way. I don't think they will have enough information about the blood type correlation fast enough for it to work. More likely they would recommend low risk groups to return first, although the same issue occurs as above. They don't know why some young people get serious illness, and not everyone knows if they have a risk factor or not. 

 

  

  

[Steeleballz 7,550]

11 hours ago, OriZ said:

Found this to be interesting:

 

https://www.vox.com/covid-19-coronavirus-treatment-prevention-cure-vaccines/2020/4/11/21217693/coronavirus-treatments-hydroxychloroquine-remdesivir-side-effects-covid-19-studies

 

 

     One of the reasons many clinicians recommended moving cautiously with HCQ. Unfortunately one of the underlying reasons is probably that the level of cardiac stress (and potential injury) is higher to begin with for someone with Covid-19. Hypoxia is difficult on the cardiovascular system anyway, and some degree of damage is probably occurring in people with severe disease. A drug with a very narrow range between therapeutic and toxic levels was always going to be problematic in that situation. 

 

    

[OriZ 3,157]

23 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Just looking at the stats, I think most people don't have enough anti-A antibody to stop the virus (assuming that is even what is happening). They probably need more research to confirm that. It's probably more like an observable trend where enough group O people get a lower dose of virus, and end up with milder symptoms, and/or recover faster. In a large population group you would see that difference in the numbers, but as individuals, I think there are still too many risk factors that any one person could have that make even a lower viral dose dangerous.  I imagine pre-existing conditions would still end up being a more significant determinant of illness severity than any protection conferred by blood group.

 

 I think they are close enough to doing antibody testing to use that for getting people back to work if they want to go that way. I don't think they will have enough information about the blood type correlation fast enough for it to work. More likely they would recommend low risk groups to return first, although the same issue occurs as above. They don't know why some young people get serious illness, and not everyone knows if they have a risk factor or not. 

 

  

  

Yeah that's true, I actually believe looking at age or known pre-existing conditions(or lack thereof) is not the right way to go..."frailty" would be better, but we don't know what determines it here.  My understanding is this virus simply attacks those who are weaker and more vulnerable. Often times this means old people, but sometimes it can also mean supposedly "young and healthy people"... just because someone doesn't necessarily have a known pre-existing condition, doesn't mean their system isn't weaker or more vulnerable in other ways we don't even know about. And then there are those ways that we do know about, like smoking, and recently they mentioned many of them were overweight. Chronic stress plays a role too I'm sure.

 

Also, Literally almost every case I've read so far where someone relatively young died from it, it took them 5-10 takes to go to the hospital, giving the virus time to do what it wants to do.

Edited April 14, 2020 by OriZ

[OriZ 3,157]

12 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

 

     One of the reasons many clinicians recommended moving cautiously with HCQ. Unfortunately one of the underlying reasons is probably that the level of cardiac stress (and potential injury) is higher to begin with for someone with Covid-19. Hypoxia is difficult on the cardiovascular system anyway, and some degree of damage is probably occurring in people with severe disease. A drug with a very narrow range between therapeutic and toxic levels was always going to be problematic in that situation. 

 

    

I would like to know your thoughts on this opinion that I read, from a clinical microbiology professor.

 

Basically, he claims that natural immunity already exists for the virus in up to 80% of the population. They are basing it on 4 samples that had a maximum ratio of infected between 13%-19%. He's assuming this represents maximum infection in the general population as well.

 

The first case is 19% on diamond princess. Of 3700 people, only 712 tested positive. The second one is on USS Theodore Roosevelt. Of 4233, 550 were infected, which s 13%. The third one is in a region in Germany, where serological testing found 15% of people in a town had developed antibodies. And also, 15% of hospital staff in Madrid.

 

He claims the statistical probability of them all being taken during the exponential rise phase is very low. He says that because there are other family members of Corona virus, and their molecules are very similar(and small parts within them are identical), you can still have cellular immunity to a new virus as a result of exposure to its "relatives". And that since different populations have different genetics, and cells that represent the molecule parts in slightly different ways, it's possible that different populations will have different levels of immunity. And the 20% that probably have no immunity, were likely never even exposed to the other corona types.

 

This also makes me wonder if it's possible to develop a type of immunity from low level exposure to the virus. When you get vaccinated, you're usually given either a weakened virus, or a dead one. What happens here, if you touch a doorknob the virus still exists on, but it's been there for 15 hours and is too weak to do serious damage? There's no denying the virus is all around us by now. I read today that it remains on floors for a long time, and sticks to people's shoe soles. Is it possible that our constant exposure to it, might be enough to create some sort of immunity to it, even without getting actually sick(because it's too weak to do any damage)?

 

[millefleur 5,047]

24 minutes ago, OriZ said:

This also makes me wonder if it's possible to develop a type of immunity from low level exposure to the virus. When you get vaccinated, you're usually given either a weakened virus, or a dead one. What happens here, if you touch a doorknob the virus still exists on, but it's been there for 15 hours and is too weak to do serious damage? There's no denying the virus is all around us by now. I read today that it remains on floors for a long time, and sticks to people's shoe soles. Is it possible that our constant exposure to it, might be enough to create some sort of immunity to it, even without getting actually sick(because it's too weak to do any damage)?

 

I also wondered about this. 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

2 hours ago, OriZ said:

I would like to know your thoughts on this opinion that I read, from a clinical microbiology professor.

 

Basically, he claims that natural immunity already exists for the virus in up to 80% of the population. They are basing it on 4 samples that had a maximum ratio of infected between 13%-19%. He's assuming this represents maximum infection in the general population as well.

 

The first case is 19% on diamond princess. Of 3700 people, only 712 tested positive. The second one is on USS Theodore Roosevelt. Of 4233, 550 were infected, which s 13%. The third one is in a region in Germany, where serological testing found 15% of people in a town had developed antibodies. And also, 15% of hospital staff in Madrid.

 

He claims the statistical probability of them all being taken during the exponential rise phase is very low. He says that because there are other family members of Corona virus, and their molecules are very similar(and small parts within them are identical), you can still have cellular immunity to a new virus as a result of exposure to its "relatives". And that since different populations have different genetics, and cells that represent the molecule parts in slightly different ways, it's possible that different populations will have different levels of immunity. And the 20% that probably have no immunity, were likely never even exposed to the other corona types.

 

This also makes me wonder if it's possible to develop a type of immunity from low level exposure to the virus. When you get vaccinated, you're usually given either a weakened virus, or a dead one. What happens here, if you touch a doorknob the virus still exists on, but it's been there for 15 hours and is too weak to do serious damage? There's no denying the virus is all around us by now. I read today that it remains on floors for a long time, and sticks to people's shoe soles. Is it possible that our constant exposure to it, might be enough to create some sort of immunity to it, even without getting actually sick(because it's too weak to do any damage)?

 

 

   This is getting more attention lately, and I think even here on the forum we have speculated a few times. Cross reactivity does occur between viral strains, and we actually saw it with the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, where older people were not contracting the illness at the same rate as younger people. Studies eventually showed that ~1/3 of people over age 60 had a neutralizing antibody to the 2009 strain that they suspect came from exposure to a similar H1N1 strain years earlier.

 

   They have also demonstrated cross reactivity of antibodies in vitro between the 2003 SARS-CoV strain and the common HCoV-OC43 strain, but there wasn't ever really a chance to correlate that with the actual infection. The way the models flatten out with Covid-19 does look like a curve where a significant number of people are either immune, or have no symptoms. So perhaps partial immunity. Sars-CoV-2 is also beta coronavirus like the OC43 strain, so if there were a similarity to one or more of the existing beta Coronavirus strains, then the immune response might not be what we would see with a completely novel virus. That could explain why many people get mild symptoms, and it could also explain the severe cases, since those patients are seeing the aggressive cytokine mediated immune response that is often seen with a novel virus.

 

   Probably less likely that exposure to dead virus is causing enough of an immune response, there wouldn't be enough of it and it wouldn't really be getting into areas where immune cells would be coming in contact with. It's theoretically possible, but I don't think it actually happens. It could be that asymptomatic carriers spread less virus, so the milder form predominates due to minimal exposure. The other hypothesis that comes up a lot is the speculation that the virus was circulating earlier than people thought in a less virulent form and many people already caught it then. 

Edited April 15, 2020 by Steeleballz

[nykolos 711]

On 4/8/2020 at 10:37 PM, 90DayFinancier said:

The unproven treatment has been repeatedly hyped by President Donald Trump in spite of the warnings of Dr. Anthony Fauci. 

I watched most of the press briefings and I don't think he hyped it all, Trump makes a comment that Covid19 patients should have the right to try hydroxychloroquine in severe cases and that it's helped patients, What followed was the media picking it apart, asking more questions at every press conference, trying to trip him up, And Trump has a bad habit of repeating answers, that's not hyping, it's repetition. 

 

Interesting, Andrew Cuomo was actually one of the first to suggest using chloroquine, and hydroxychloroquine in his state, and yet the media had NO problem with it at all, didn't have anything negative to report about it, That was until Trump came out and made the same suggestion, only then did it become the most unproven and unsafe drug in the world.

 

Are newsmen and women born intellectually dishonest? or is the money they earn so great that they sell their souls?

 

 

 

Edited April 15, 2020 by nykolos