Toggle sidebar

TSN: How the coronavirus could impact the NHL’s bottom line UPD: NHL Season suspended MOD Warning post139

  • Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
Raccoon Jesus said:
"bending the curve" for the body :laugh:

Anything that slows it down is good at this point. Part of the problem is that Hydroxychloroquine isn't being used until patients are in serious distress, at which time their odds go down--that's not helping these studies at all. Yet due to side effects, people don't want to treat with HCQ early, either. That's why I'm not real hopeful we'll find out much about the efficacy of this in a timely manner. The PLUS is that it's widely available, but we've gotta be careful too, as it's a main treatment for folks with lupus and autoimmune diseases, and they're getting their prescriptions cut down to 30 days from 90.

I'm more hopeful to see what comes of the remdesivir trials. And also, saw this yesterday, which was really interesting and a little more cutting edge: UofL breakthrough technology shows promise fighting novel coronavirus | UofL News
Click to expand...
Yeah, I don't know how powerful an anti-inflammatory hydroxychloroquine is compared to other drugs. Maybe there are better anti-inflammatory drugs for different people. As with most medicine, one size probably doesn't fit all. The more I read the more I think if you contract COVID-19 an anti-inflammatory along with zinc and some type of antibiotic to fight secondary bacterial infections probably are good ideas.
 
HeadInjury said:
Cuomo says that antibody tests show that 14% of all New Yorkers have had the virus, including 21% in NYC.

New York antibody study estimates 13.9% of residents have had the coronavirus, Gov. Cuomo says

If correct, by my math, the true death rate in New York state is 0.76%
Click to expand...

Which would again track with the Santa Clara/LA examples, this is starting to look really optimistic

Edit: "The testing results also may be artificially high because “these are people who were out and about shopping,” Cuomo added. “They were not people who were in their home, they were not people isolated, they were not people who were quarantined who you could argue probably had a lower rate of infection because they wouldn’t come out of the house.”

While Cuomo cautioned that the data was preliminary, he also said the 3,000 test sample was a “significant data set.”"

Usual cautionary disclaimers. Need to keep doing these studies of more random populations and significant sample sizes along with everything else of course
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rumpelstiltskin
Raccoon Jesus said:
I think the occam's razor explanation is in the tweet near the bottom of that article: "As a layperson observer who’s watched this battle play out, I wouldn’t be surprised if it turns out that it’s a mixed bag: Helpful for some, neutral for others, potentially dangerous for others susceptible to certain side effects."

That would jive with everything we know about the drug and its side effects as well as even the worst studies. "better than nothing for folks who are already struggling," you know?
Click to expand...

Doctors tend to be risk averse, I find it difficult to believe that 30% of them would give these drugs to a healthy family member just because they were exposed to someone with COVID. Certainly not ones who are young. Doctors just don't do that kind of thing because of potential lawsuits alone. I would love to see how the question was actually phrased.

But lets say it was a fair question.

The link to the where the author found that study has this statement:

"A new survey from Jackson & Coker shows an overwhelming majority of doctors would prescribe hydroxychloroquine or another anti-malaria drug to a family member suffering from Wuhan coronavirus." (Wuhan coronavirus, that's not an indicator of any kind of bias...)

From the actual Coker study, 30% of doctors said they would prescribe the medications to prevent onset of symptoms. So one could also write "A new survey from Jackson & Coker shows an overwhelming majority of doctors would not prescribe hydroxychloroquine or another anti-malaria drug to a family member as a preventative measure against COVID-19."

Two statements from the same study with completely different implications.

The lead statement says "Sixty-five percent of physicians across the United States said they would prescribe the anti-malaria drugs chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine to treat or prevent COVID-19 in a family member," which simply isn't what the data say. 67% said they would use it to treat themselves, not a family member, and only 30% said they would use it as a preventative. And how is 30% a significant number and 65% an "overwhelming majority"? If 30% is significant, than the other 70% is not even a significant majority. It's just stupid.

This is just another example of the shit that's circulating on the internet to mislead others. All it ends up doing is denigrating the work of the actual study because now it appears biased and worthless.
 
Last edited:
Fishhead said:
Doctors tend to be risk averse, I find it difficult to believe that 30% of them would give these drugs to a healthy family member just because they were exposed to someone with COVID. Certainly not ones who are young. Doctors just don't do that kind of thing because of potential lawsuits alone. I would love to see how the question was actually phrased.

But lets say it was a fair question.

The link to the where the author found that study has this statement:

"A new survey from Jackson & Coker shows an overwhelming majority of doctors would prescribe hydroxychloroquine or another anti-malaria drug to a family member suffering from Wuhan coronavirus." (Wuhan coronavirus, that's not an indicator of any kind of bias...)

From the actual Coker study, 30% of doctors said they would prescribe the medications to prevent onset of symptoms. So one could also write "A new survey from Jackson & Coker shows an overwhelming majority of doctors would not prescribe hydroxychloroquine or another anti-malaria drug to a family member as a preventative measure against COVID-19."

Two statements from the same study with completely different implications.

The lead statement says "Sixty-five percent of physicians across the United States said they would prescribe the anti-malaria drugs chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine to treat or prevent COVID-19 in a family member," which simply isn't what the data say. 67% said they would use it to treat themselves, not a family member, and only 30% said they would use it as a preventative. And how is 30% a significant number and 65% an "overwhelming majority"? If 30% is significant, than the other 70% is not even a significant majority. It's just stupid.

This is just another example of the shit that's circulating on the internet to mislead others. All it ends up doing is denigrating the work of the actual study because now it appears biased and worthless.
Click to expand...


There are a lot of framing issues across the board, I agree.
 
The Tikkanen said:
I went to a store this week where nobody had a mask on so I think people are starting to believe what they believe.
Click to expand...
it's kinda bizarre around here

grocery stores require masks to enter and are pretty quiet
lowe's is a free for all, no masks and absolutely packed, all they've done is tape squares on the floor for lines and glass off the cashiers
my welding supply was like a surgery room, only 2 people allowed in at a time and masks required
steel supply wouldn't even talk to you face to face, they posted on the doors that you had to call and they brought everything to my truck masked up
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rumpelstiltskin and Raccoon Jesus
Raccoon Jesus said:
Which is even more evidence for the NYC subway being literally the worst thing in the world for transmission
Click to expand...

That is absolutely true and I don't think they're really changing anything. I guess if you limit the number of passengers per train, it just creates more crowding in the stations. Cuomo only ordered passengers on subways/buses to wear masks on April 15.
 
So when this is over can I expect to sit in a clean, freshly disinfected airplane seat when I fly? Or if I get on a subway it's 100% germ free? Or when I go to the movies the seat has been wiped down and the fabric steam cleaned? Or will we just go back to being the filthy human beings we were? And then wait for the next new and improved virus.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RocketKing
Guess this week will be a good test for how the virus does in hot weather, good grief. 60-something yesterday, 95 in the IE today. Dress clothes and a mask were a stupid f***ing idea, I'm a human sauna today. Nothing like walking into vacant, no-AC homes in basically blankets.
 
jfont said:
Some bad news with regards to the Gilead drug
Data on Gilead's remdesivir show no benefit for coronavirus patients
Click to expand...

Was gonna say 'damnit' buuuut the article goes on to explain there are other studies and this one is from China with some data issues...

Edit: haha something sketchy there for sure, 'Gilead sciences stock sinks after trial data "accidentally" released,' and analysists saying treatment results are 'inappropriate characterization' and 'inconclusive' all over the headlines. Someone trying to play with the market, get stock at reduced value? It didn't work.

Shit ill buy 5 more shares tonight
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rumpelstiltskin
New York Finds Virus Marker in 13.9%, Suggesting Wide Spread

A New York study seeking to measure the spread of the new coronavirus found that 13.9% of 3,000 people tested across the state had signs of the virus, one of the biggest U.S. reviews to date.

That implies that about 2.7 million residents may have had Covid-19, Governor Andrew Cuomo said. That’s about 10 times more than the official count based on the state’s testing, which covered mostly very sick patients.

The pandemic was more intense in New York City, the hardest-hit area in the U.S. There, 21.2% of people tested positive for a blood marker showing that they had been infected at some point.

If these numbers are true, that means the fatality rate of COVID19 is about 0.5%. Much lower than previously thought.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rumpelstiltskin
johnjm22 said:
New York Finds Virus Marker in 13.9%, Suggesting Wide Spread

A New York study seeking to measure the spread of the new coronavirus found that 13.9% of 3,000 people tested across the state had signs of the virus, one of the biggest U.S. reviews to date.

That implies that about 2.7 million residents may have had Covid-19, Governor Andrew Cuomo said. That’s about 10 times more than the official count based on the state’s testing, which covered mostly very sick patients.

The pandemic was more intense in New York City, the hardest-hit area in the U.S. There, 21.2% of people tested positive for a blood marker showing that they had been infected at some point.

If these numbers are true, that means the fatality rate of COVID19 is about 0.5%. Much lower than previously thought.
Click to expand...

Which is especially good news given NYC has basically worst case scenario for density, disease transmission, etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom