COVID COVID-19 Coronavirus Containment Efforts

[Vanadium 50]

Of course you'll get 4% fewer deaths if 4% of that age group died.

Which would be restating that people who would have died in June died in April. It has to.

Furthermore, that didn't happen. The 85+ population of Europe is 2.4% x 741M = 17.8M. 4% of that is 700,000. There have been 180,000 deaths. So the effect is 4x larger than just population would lead you to expect - which we already knew: Covid is fatal to the very sickest in that age group.

That means that a statistically healthier population remains, and again, that's saying the same thing a different way.

 

[anorlunda]

That means that a statistically healthier population remains, and again, that's saying the same thing a different way.

Health is not the only thing that distinguishes seniors. I'll wager that a higher fraction of octogenarians have advance medical directives than sexagenarians.

The implication in that Birchwood Nursing Home article is that many of those 21 victims might have lived if they could have been given advanced medical treatment.

But like any other kind of alternate history, that's speculation. Its also speculation any different past action or inaction might have changed the Coronavirus numbers.

 

[Vanadium 50]

The implication in that Birchwood Nursing Home article is that many of those 21 victims might have lived if they could have been given advanced medical treatment.

That's certainly likely.

But like any other kind of alternate history, that's speculation.

Yes, but consider the converse. The converse of "Because of Covid, some deaths that would otherwise have occurred in June would have happened in March" is "If it weren't for Covid, every single person - without exception- who died in March would have been alive in June." Which is more likely?

 

[mfb]

Which would be restarting that people who would have died in June died in April. It has to.

No, it would be people who died in April would have died at some point in the next few years. At age 85 most people die in the next few years.

Furthermore, that didn't happen. The 85+ population of Europe is 2.4% x 741M = 17.8M. 4% of that is 700,000. There have been 180,000 deaths. So the effect is 4x larger than just population would lead you to expect - which we already knew: Covid is fatal to the very sickest in that age group.

That's still more than two months.

Yes, but consider the converse. The converse of "Because of Covid, some deaths that would otherwise have occurred in June would have happened in March" is "If it weren't for Covid, every single person - without exception- who died in March would have been alive in June." Which is more likely?

Now you weakened the statement massively to defend it. The question was never if COVID-19 moved some deaths forward by just a month. The question was how many deaths happened years earlier.

How many die in the 85+ group every month? ~2% or 350,000 in Europe? That went down by 4%, or 14,000? At that rate - even if it would stay constant - it will take a while to match the COVID-19 deaths.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Now you weakened the statement massively to defend it.

The statement was

the assertion that the Coronavirus caused deaths in April that would have occurred in June is not correct.

I think I have argued that there were deaths in April (or at least pre-June) that would otherwise have occurred in June by:

1. Pointing people to the Euromomo data, which shows a reduction. It happens to be true that the fatality reduction is 4x larger than would be explained by just population reduction, but even if it were simply due to that, it would still be true that there were deaths that occurred in April that otherwise would occur in June.
2. Pointing out that the converse is false, or at least miraculous.

I never said that the number of people in this category " matched the COVID-19 deaths". Tell you what - why don't you let me determine what I am saying? You don't have to stick words in my mouth.

 

[kadiot]

What's your thought about the 14-day Covid-19 symptom-based test to clear persons to return to work?

 

[mfb]

The statement was

the assertion that the Coronavirus caused deaths in April that would have occurred in June is not correct.

The statement clearly refers to the majority of deaths. We also had someone saying "people who would have died in June died in April" or something like that earlier in this thread. To make that true the numbers would need to match, or at least be similar. They are not. COVID-19 killed many people who would have lived on for much longer than June.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I can only go by what is written. That's what was written. You seem to have the ability to read minds, although I don't think you are doing a very good job of it with me.

 

[kyphysics]

weird

I posted/quoted an article on the possible treatment of COVID via radiation therapy that seemed exciting news...it got deleted because it said unproven treatments shouldn't be posted.

The entire point of the article was that it was a possible treatment being tested and studied with promising early results. How is that different from every other article people post on possible new treatments/vaccines that are ALL UNPROVEN? Everything is unproven at this point!

My article (and my previous ones) and everyone else's all say these are simply exciting new possibilities with good early results...are we suddenly not allowed to report such news? I better see every other person's posts of such nature deleted in this thread in the future.

 

[kyphysics]

So, is the policy that we cannot post on today's reports on dexamethasone?

It's not a proven drug either. Although, every news outlet is reporting on it?

 

[bob012345]

So, is the policy that we cannot post on today's reports on dexamethasone?

It's not a proven drug either. Although, every news outlet is reporting on it?

Apparently, it is proven now according to the New York Times;

An inexpensive drug reduces virus deaths, scientists say.
Scientists at the University of Oxford said on Tuesday that they have identified what they called the first drug proven to reduce coronavirus-related deaths, after a 6,000-patient trial of the drug in Britain showed that a low-cost steroid could reduce deaths significantly for hospitalized patients.

The steroid, dexamethasone, reduced deaths by a third in patients receiving ventilation, and by a fifth in patients receiving only oxygen treatment, the scientists said. They found no benefit from the drug in patients who did not need respiratory support.

Matt Hancock, Britain’s health secretary, said National Health Service doctors would begin treating patients with the drug on Tuesday afternoon.

The government started stockpiling dexamethasone several months ago because it was hopeful about the potential of the drug, Mr. Hancock said, and now has 200,000 doses on hand.

 

[kadiot]

The steroid, dexamethasone, reduced deaths by a third in patients receiving ventilation, and by a fifth in patients receiving only oxygen treatment, the scientists said. They found no benefit from the drug in patients who did not need respiratory support.

Not beneficial to those not using oxygen or ventilation.

 

[mfb]

Not beneficial to those not using oxygen or ventilation.

These are also less likely to die.

We had a thread about low-dose ionizing radiation. I don't know if it's still there, but we certainly had a thread about it.

I can only go by what is written. That's what was written. You seem to have the ability to read minds, although I don't think you are doing a very good job of it with me.

What was written was not explicitly either interpretation, but one interpretation is obviously silly. You picked that one to argue against.

 

[russ_watters]

This is a very emotional story about deaths in a nursing home. Despite forewarning, and despite believing that they were fully prepared, the virus got into this nursing home and killed 21 residents in a short time...

But the article says that the average stay for residents of that home is 3 years, and one of the victims was there for 15 years. Therefore, the assertion that the Coronavirus caused deaths in April that would have occurred in June is not correct.

The article says there were 112 residents, of which an estimated 80 were infected. This is consistent with the fraction infected if everyone is exposed, that we've seen elsewhere (70%).

An average length of stay of three years is 3.1 deaths per month, or 9 in a typical 3-month period. And since COVID-19 preys on the weakest, I think it is quite plausible that roughly 9 of those 21 killed were likely to die between April and June with or without the virus.

Of course, what they haven't said is if there were additional deaths not resulting from COVID-19 in April, though with 70% infected, 1 additional death not COVID-related would be statistically predicted.

Also, while a resident who has been there 15 years clearly proved him/herself unusually hardy, they also were running on borrowed time. It's unlikely that someone who arrived 15 years ago unusually hardy is still unusually hardy 15 years later.

Therefore, victims could not be saved by use of ventilators. That fact, rather than the preexisting state of health of the residents could account for the very high mortality rate.

It's certainly likely to have contributed, but in order to decline a ventilator you first have to be sick enough to need one. In addition, the ventilator survival rate has been reported to be quite poor (and again, probably gets worse with underlying health issues). A nursing home is a place where by definition everyone is in poor health, with the potential exception of people who voluntarily go to be with a spouse (though that would be financially burdensome and awkward).

 

[Astronuc]

Also factor in increased and expanded testing rates at least in Texas.

More testing would certainly lead to an increase in 'confirmed' cases of COVID-19, especially where testing has been limited. On the other hand, those of are positive cases. Perhaps more relevant is the number of hospitalizations.

CBS News and other media report an increase in hospitalizations in Texas. "The state's Department of Health and Human Services reported 2,326 lab-confirmed COVID-19 patients who are currently in Texas hospitals, bypassing the previous record high on Sunday of 2,287. There are currently 51,365 total staffed hospital beds in the state, with 14,525 hospital beds available. Only 1,626 beds in Intensive Care Units are currently available in the state." On Saturday, there were 2242 hospitalizations. The numbers represent cumulative values as opposed to new one day incremental values.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-coronavirus-highest-day-hospitalized-patients/
https://www.tmc.edu/coronavirus-updates/tmc-daily-new-covid-19-hospitalizations/
https://www.tmc.edu/coronavirus-updates/infection-rate-in-the-greater-houston-area/

The Texas Medical Center publishes COVID-19 data for the Houston area (includes Harris Counties and probably surrounding counties for folks treated in Houston). There are other regions like Dallas, Fort Worth, Austin, San Antonio, that are also seeing increases.

https://txdshs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/0d8bdf9be927459d9cb11b9eaef6101f

As of June 16, Texas Department of State Health Services reports 2518 hospitalizations. There are 54844 staffed hospital beds, 14993 hospital beds available, 1675 ICU beds available, and 5869 ventilators available.

 

[atyy]

So, is the policy that we cannot post on today's reports on dexamethasone?

It's not a proven drug either. Although, every news outlet is reporting on it?

Apparently, it is proven now according to the New York Times;

An inexpensive drug reduces virus deaths, scientists say.
Scientists at the University of Oxford said on Tuesday that they have identified what they called the first drug proven to reduce coronavirus-related deaths, after a 6,000-patient trial of the drug in Britain showed that a low-cost steroid could reduce deaths significantly for hospitalized patients.

The steroid, dexamethasone, reduced deaths by a third in patients receiving ventilation, and by a fifth in patients receiving only oxygen treatment, the scientists said. They found no benefit from the drug in patients who did not need respiratory support.

Matt Hancock, Britain’s health secretary, said National Health Service doctors would begin treating patients with the drug on Tuesday afternoon.

The government started stockpiling dexamethasone several months ago because it was hopeful about the potential of the drug, Mr. Hancock said, and now has 200,000 doses on hand.

Interesting reports. The cytokine storm hypothesis for COVID-19 is roughly that there is "too much inflammation". It was also a hypothesized caused of death for the 1918 influenza pandemic and SARS. It is natural to try an anti-inflammatory which could be a (cortico)steroid like dexamathasone, or a non-steroid (NSAID) like Ibuprufen. However, inflammation is also part of the immune response, and may help to clear the virus from the body. Earlier studies on SARS suggested that such treatments did not have a positive effect on mortality, and slowed clearance of the virus. So there has been much discussion whether, when and how to give such drugs in COVID-19.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200505-cytokine-storms-when-the-body-attacks-itself: "The solution, then, might be to quiet the rampaging immune response. Steroids are often the first choice of treatment. They act broadly to dampen the immune system – but, of course, that system is needed at a lower intensity to fight invaders. In the case of Covid-19, it’s not yet clear if steroids are beneficial or harmful, Cron says."
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/16/...ench-health-minister-scn-intl-scli/index.html
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmed.2020.00170/full
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41375-020-0848-3
https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/early/2020/04/20/13993003.01009-2020

 

[atyy]

In addition, the ventilator survival rate has been reported to be quite poor (and again, probably gets worse with underlying health issues).

This estimate may be changing. The ventilator survival rates may have been low because healthcare systems were overwhelmed, and not able to optimize ventilator treatment for each patient. It may also be that doctors now know who is likely to benefit from ventilator treatment, and may be choosing patients differently now than earlier. It could also be that the early numbers were incomplete. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/05/15/856768020/new-evidence-suggests-covid-19-patients-on-ventilators-usually-survive

There is a similar pattern for ECMO. Early numbers indicated more than 90% mortality, but current estimates from ongoing studies suggest a survival rate of 50%. See Graeme MacLaren's comments around 32:00-33:30 in Managing the critically ill COVID-19 patient: From oxygen to ECMO.

 

[Jarvis323]

I was surprised to find (where I am) that mask requirements have been lifted while we transition to reopening. I don't know what people are thinking. If we had been wearing masks since the start, we probably wouldn't have needed to shutdown in the first place, and many thousands of deaths may have been prevenable.

Also, recently Fauci finally admitted to lying about the effectiveness of masks and explained why they launched their misinformation campaign.

 

[russ_watters]

Also, recently Fauci finally admitted to lying about the effectiveness of masks and explained why they launched their misinformation campaign. In my opinion, this should be a career ending scandal for everyone involved.

Do you have a source for that?

 

[Jarvis323]

Do you have a source for that?

https://www.thestreet.com/video/dr-fauci-masks-changing-directive-coronavirus?jwsource=cl

 

[kadiot]

What is dexamethasone?

Dexamethasone is a type of medication called a corticosteroid that has numerous effects on the human body.
The major effect of dexamethasone on COVID-19 is that it can help calm down the uncontrolled inflammation that occurs in severely-ill COVID-19 patients.

In patients who only have mild disease, dexamethasone doesn't seem to have any beneficial effect.

Dexamethasone has NO clinically significant antiviral properties and can actually suppress the immune response, potentially increasing your risk of viral, bacterial, and fungal infection, INCLUDING COVID-19.

Powerful corticosteroids like dexamethasone can have severe and life-threatening side effects and should only be taken under the supervision of a properly licensed physician. It should only be taken when the potential benefit outweighs the risk of using the drug. It should also be used at the correct dosage and duration or it will not have the desired effect. Please don't experiment with dexamethasone. It can do a lot more harm than good if improperly used.

 

[mfb]

https://www.thestreet.com/video/dr-fauci-masks-changing-directive-coronavirus?jwsource=cl

That doesn't back your claims.

Globally, recorded recoveries are now nearly half of all confirmed cases, but the daily new cases are still going up. 120,000 now. We'll reach 10 million confirmed cases in early July at that rate.

 

[Jarvis323]

That doesn't back your claims.

Globally, recorded recoveries are now nearly half of all confirmed cases, but the daily new cases are still going up. 120,000 now. We'll reach 10 million confirmed cases in early July at that rate.

I apologize if I come off as brash. I understand that the campaign to discourage mask use could be framed in a more polite way, but I honestly think my framing of the incident as a misinformation campaign is quite accurate from a technical standpoint. I also realize that they had a "noble" motivation to lie to us, which is what Fauci explains in the video. I suppose it is up for debate whether scientists and government officials should lie to the public when they think the ends justify the means. In my opinion, it causes irreparable damage to the scientific community, our government institutions, and society in general. Many people won't trust the government, or scientific authorities in the future about other topics. And why should they if disinformation has become a normalized practice/strategy?

In terms of whether mask use could have prevented thousands of deaths and the need for a lock down, you can't prove anything about that. But I challenge you to compare countries which instituted mandatory mask use early on to those that didn't.

If we are being honest, the misinformation campaign, late adoption of the use of masks as a strategy (along with unpreparedness/empty stockpiles), is turning out to look very much like a disastrous set of mistakes.

I'm sorry I am being so pessimistic, instead of following suit to brush this all under the rug. It has been very frustrating being lied to (or at the very least being assertively told things were true, that were at best uncertain at the time, but turned out to be false) constantly throughout this whole thing. Now it seems that most people are just confused, hanging on to all kinds of false assumptions, spreading misinformation on social media, and in general being very distrustful of everything else they are being told. So now we are asked to swallow the fact that we were lied to, because it was for our own good. Ok, thanks for lying to us, I guess.

 

[atyy]

I apologize if I come off as brash. I understand that the campaign to discourage mask use could be framed in a more polite way, but I honestly think my framing of the incident as a misinformation campaign is quite accurate from a technical standpoint. I also realize that they had a "noble" motivation to lie to us, which is what Fauci explains in the video. I suppose it is up for debate whether scientists and government officials should lie to the public when they think the ends justify the means. In my opinion, it causes irreparable damage to the scientific community, our government institutions, and society in general. Many people won't trust the government, or scientific authorities in the future about other topics. And why should they if disinformation has become a normalized practice/strategy?

In terms of whether mask use could have prevented thousands of deaths and the need for a lock down, you can't prove anything about that. But I challenge you to compare countries which instituted mandatory mask use early on to those that didn't.

If we are being honest, the misinformation campaign, late adoption of the use of masks as a strategy (along with unpreparedness/empty stockpiles), is turning out to look very much like a disastrous set of mistakes.

I'm sorry I am being so pessimistic, instead of following suit to brush this all under the rug. It has been very frustrating being lied to (or at the very least being assertively told things were true, that were at best uncertain at the time, but turned out to be false) constantly throughout this whole thing. My intelligence has been constantly insulted. But it's not just me, it's the public they are talking to. So I guess they think the public is dumb, and us intellectuals need to just cover our eyes or something. Now it seems that most people are just confused, hanging on to all kinds of false assumptions, spreading misinformation on social media, and in general being very distrustful of everything else they are being told. So now we are asked to swallow the fact that we were lied to, because it was for our own good. Ok, thanks for lying to us, I guess.

I agree that much public messaging on masks was misleading (you can see earlier in this thread there was vigorous discussion, eg. between @bhobba and @chemisttree). However, it doesn't mean that the public health recommendations were wrong, but that their rationale was poorly explained, eroding trust. Overall, the issue was quite controversial among experts (George Gao, a Chinese expert thought it was important, and major medical journals like the New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, and BMJ took quite different positions). In the US, the CDC still does not recommend community wearing of surgical masks (there is good evidence that these protect the wearer), but instead suggests cloth masks (there is weaker evidence about their ability to protect the wearer or others).

Incidentally, the experience of New Zealand does suggest that in some contexts (in which other measures are taken), community mask wearing is not necessary for achieving an excellent outcome. https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work...eral-public/covid-19-use-face-masks-community

 

[Jarvis323]

but that their rationale was poorly explained, eroding trust.

This is a polite way of saying they lied. It sounds nicer, but it's less clear. But also, it wasn't just a random lie, it was a coordinated disinformation campaign. We can talk about it in all sorts of indirect ways without admitting it, but it's pretty obvious anyway by now, so what's the point?

 

[Astronuc]

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/05/outdated-fauci-video-on-face-masks-shared-out-of-context/

Dr Fauci (March 8), "There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask." hat's an unfortunate mis-statement. Of the reason to wear a mask, in public, is to mitigate spread of an airborne virus responsible for a respiratory illness. It's the same reason that one wears a mask when one has a cold or influenza, although many people do not. When I thought I had influenza (fever and cough), when I arrived at the clinic, I immediately put on a mask, which I retrieved from a dispenser near the main entry.

I use the mask when cycling in smoky (from wildfires) or dusty (fine volcanic ash and desert sand) conditions in order to prevent (or mitigate) inhalation of smoke or dust particulates (< 2.5 microns). It works.

Fauci's comment was made because there was not enough masks available to the population, and he felt that doctors, nurses and other health care workers needed masks more than the general public. The 'stay-at-home' orders were necessary, because there were not enough masks to go around. At about the time states started implementing 'stay-at-home', we saw folks going on buying sprees and hoarding supplies of toilet paper, paper towels, alcohol, sanitizers and so on. The limited supply of masks went to those who got there first, such that many went without, and folks started buying online in competition with the health industry and state/local governments. Those in greatest need often went without. My wife order a package of masks in late March, and we did not receive the order until mid May (~8 weeks later).

I had to wear a bandana, then a handmade clothe face mask until we received the proper masks. Actually, a bandana or clothe mask with 3-4 layers of coffee filter would be effective. I confirmed with a family member who is a doctor and who treats patients with a variety of respiratory infections, including SARS-CoV-2.

 

[bhobba]

I agree that much public messaging on masks was misleading (you can see earlier in this thread there was vigorous discussion, eg. between @bhobba and @chemisttree). However, it doesn't mean that the public health recommendations were wrong, but that their rationale was poorly explained, eroding trust.

Yes knowledge of this virus has moved on since those early posts. It is now known it can take a while for symptoms to show and you are infectious then:
https://theconversation.com/masks-h...q3bFQiLa7Pj1S3Be8145QyTC2buRb9ak6hvCoTWaUX_co

But remember in places like Australia infections are so low, those that have it are vastly coming from overseas and quarantined. We had 18 new cases today - but it was reported virtually all was from people quarantined from overseas. Local transmission is very very low - in Queensland just one today and we are getting more and more days with 0 cases. Only 5 active cases. In such a situation the optional wearing of masks, which is the rule here, is reasonable. Should a second wave strike, or we have local outbreaks then yes - masks should, and with what we now know would, be mandatory.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Jarvis323]

Yes knowledge of this virus has moved on since those early posts. It is now known it can take a while for symptoms to show and you are infectious then:
https://theconversation.com/masks-h...q3bFQiLa7Pj1S3Be8145QyTC2buRb9ak6hvCoTWaUX_co

But remember in places like Australia infections are so low, those that have it are vastly coming from overseas and quarantined. We had 18 new cases today - but it was reported virtually all was from people quarantined from overseas. Local transmission is very very low - in Queensland just one today and we are getting more and more days with 0 cases. Only 5 active cases. In such a situation the optional wearing of masks, which is the rule here, is reasonable. Should a second wave strike, or we have local outbreaks then yes - masks should, and with what we now know would, be mandatory.

Thanks
Bill

There is no shame in having trusted public health officials.

But the, "we now know that", excuse falls short. The disinformation went above and beyond, to the point that people were convinced mask use was actually dangerous and worse than nothing. At that time in the US, people were being ridiculed and even in some cases attacked for being seen wearing masks in public, even cloth ones.

To make things worse, the denial of asymptomatic spread was actually pretty dubious at the time. It was't proven, but we had evidence of asymptomatic spread very early on. The late official acknowledgment of that wasn't the reason the truth changed about the danger, effectiveness, and advanced training required for masks to do more good than harm.

Why they were so dismissive of asymptomatic spread for so long is another issue. I suspect they were trying to avoid scaring people and at that time were likely worried about the impact on the economy. It was unproven at the time, but rather than saying that some evidence suggests asymptomatic spreading, but we're not sure, they chose to reassure us that asymptomatic spreading wasn't a concern. At the time they were convincing us that masks are dangerous, even if they weren't ready to warn us about asymptomatic spreading, they should have at least been concerned about it privately.

At that time it was all about hand washing. And they had also dismissed evidence of spreading through aerosols.

 

[gmax137]

It was obvious to me when Fauci was discouraging mask use it was to preserve the supply for the medical workers. So, I don't feel like I was "lied to" at all.

And when he said general public use of mask was a waste, I saw that as truth - after seeing people out in public with masks on, reaching up to scratch their noses under the mask. Or wearing the mask upside down. Or having their nose sticking out above the mask.

 

[bhobba]

The disinformation went above and beyond, to the point that people were convinced mask use was actually dangerous and worse than nothing.

If not needed it can make the situation worse because, as articles at the time explained, many people find them 'itchy' and scratch their face, which is a known method of transmission. It is a balance between benefit and risk. I am one of those people that even without a mask scratches their face, it's almost involuntary. With a mask it would likely be worse. If mask wearing was made compulsory, I would personally go out even less frequently (which now is on the average about once every two days and then only for short periods of time) than I do now, with a hand sanitizer in my pocket to be used frequently to avoid issues with scratching my face.

Thanks
Bill