University of Illinois projects

[jlb321]

The first red flag with this study is that the subjects who were enrolled and given "prophylactic" hydroxychloroquine were started on the drug within 4 days of diagnosis of their contact. The odds are very high that source of the infection was shedding virus for several days before that. Regardless, this a post-exposure pre-illness treatment for COVID. That still does not evaluate pre-exposure prophylactic use of the drug. Many people are already exhibiting symptoms by day 4 after exposure. That is what happens when peers review papers like this. They pick apart the information and point out the potential errors in the research or conclusions. This was great research but once again the information derived needs to be taken in the context of the methods.

IMO, the best way to determine efficacy would be to have people on hydroxycloroquine for a number of days THEN expose them to the virus via challenge. Would you like to volunteer for that study?

they are doing a pure prophylactic trial in Detroit - whip COVID or something like that

 

[Crazyhole]

https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/h...souri/63-c6247cc3-2501-41dd-8b64-d1375cebe5a3

24 times the number of reported cases have antibodies as of April according to this study. I'd say that's pretty significant.

 

[dinglefritz]

https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/h...souri/63-c6247cc3-2501-41dd-8b64-d1375cebe5a3

24 times the number of reported cases have antibodies as of April according to this study. I'd say that's pretty significant.

Well they only estimated 2.6% of Missourians had the virus back in April. IF it is 24 times that number then it's significant. If it's 24 times the lab confirmed cases, then it's not nearly as significant and that is what this TV station is reporting.

 

[ATLsker]

Again. You need to take a remedial math class. Did you even look at the report you linked. Better read it again. You do realize that it has included the disclaimer "with REPORTED underlying conditions". You do understand what that means right? IF the Dr. or hospital doesn't include that the kid had chronic asthma (which most don't when filling out a death certificate) then the CDC doesn't get that information.

From that chart for 10 to 29 year olds out of TENS of MILLIONS of cases nationwide during that time frame they say we've had 4 deaths in the 10-19 age group and 24 in the 20-29 age group without KNOWN OR REPORTED underlying conditions. . Right off the bat I'll tell you that most of those deaths in that last group were closer to 29 than 20. You don't understand how these stats are arrived at and the PROBLEM with the variables such as the way a Dr. fills out a death certificate. We've not had a single kid hospitalized from COVID in our area. Not one. I've been reading (and understanding) epidemiological reports and statistics for 40 years.

People with ZERO epidemiological training and scientific background should NOT be trying to interpret disease statistics.

Javarrio had a KNOWN genetic renal disease. He CHOSE to continue to play football to get an education despite the risks. I know more about that situation than I can share. Tommie eventually was diagnosed with inflammatory bowel disease which IF he had been honest with his Dr.s about his GI symptoms probably would have been diagnosed and treated at a much earlier stage.

I conceded that there could be errors in the data, especially with such a small sample size. You are ASSUMING that all reported deaths are erroneous without any proof. And you are doing that in contradiction of Dr. Jacobson and Dr. Saag who appear to be well respected in the academic community. I trust them to interpret disease statistics way more than I trust you.

I appreciate the level of experience you bring, if you are indeed being truthful, but anyone claiming they know enough about this virus with the degree of certainty you have is full of BS. We are still learning about this thing. And right now the data, albeit limited, does not support your claim. Pardon us for not taking your assumptions at face value.

FWIW I do know a professional football player in his early 20s that was hospitalized with it. Thankfully he didn't need a ventilator and has recovered.

 

[jmliehr]

Well they only estimated 2.6% of Missourians had the virus back in April. IF it is 24 times that number then it's significant. If it's 24 times the lab confirmed cases, then it's not nearly as significant and that is what this TV station is reporting.

Missouri was restricting tests until June basically, I don’t think this tells us much.

 

[dinglefritz]

I conceded that there could be errors in the data, especially with such a small sample size. You are ASSUMING that all reported deaths are erroneous without any proof. And you are doing that in contradiction of Dr. Jacobson and Dr. Saag who appear to be well respected in the academic community. I trust them to interpret disease statistics way more than I trust you.

I appreciate the level of experience you bring, if you are indeed being truthful, but anyone claiming they know enough about this virus with the degree of certainty you have is full of BS. We are still learning about this thing. And right now the data, albeit limited, does not support your claim. Pardon us for not taking your assumptions at face value.

FWIW I do know a professional football player in his early 20s that was hospitalized with it. Thankfully he didn't need a ventilator and has recovered.

No. I know lots of Drs. I visit with them about their record keeping. All are doing it electronically. Some do it while drinking. MOST miss a little box or 2 or 3 when they're going through the electronic forms. IF you don't get paid more for checking a box, there's a fair chance that box isn't going to get a check mark on the old laptop as you're sipping some Johnny Walker and watching TV.

Some/many of the patients who die in hospitals are pronounced by a hospitalist who may have just come on duty and may not be completely familiar with the patient's history. If the hospitalist of the moment Dr. Welby walks in the the door and Patient X who he's never seen before assumes room temperature at that moment, he's not going to read through the file to make sure he notes the pre-existing conditions Mr. X had. SO , when they say there's only 20+ deaths with KNOWN and REPORTED comorbidities, you take it for just that. The CDC does NOT know for SURE that those victims were in fact free from a comorbidity. It's just a potential pitfall of their reporting methods and why you need to be careful making assumptions and extrapolations based on that statistic.

I can say that we are not seeing ANY people under the age of 50 being hospitalized and the ones over 50 have all had comorbidities.

 

[jlb321]

No. I know lots of Drs. I visit with them about their record keeping. All are doing it electronically. Some do it while drinking. MOST miss a little box or 2 or 3 when they're going through the electronic forms. IF you don't get paid more for checking a box, there's a fair chance that box isn't going to get a check mark on the old laptop as you're sipping some Johnny Walker and watching TV.

Some/many of the patients who die in hospitals are pronounced by a hospitalist who may have just come on duty and may not be completely familiar with the patient's history. If the hospitalist of the moment Dr. Welby walks in the the door and Patient X who he's never seen before assumes room temperature at that moment, he's not going to read through the file to make sure he notes the pre-existing conditions Mr. X had. SO , when they say there's only 20+ deaths with KNOWN and REPORTED comorbidities, you take it for just that. The CDC does NOT know for SURE that those victims were in fact free from a comorbidity. It's just a potential pitfall of their reporting methods and why you need to be careful making assumptions and extrapolations based on that statistic.

I can say that we are not seeing ANY people under the age of 50 being hospitalized and the ones over 50 have all had comorbidities.

linked is the North American ECMO data (extracorporeal membrane oxygenation) - basically your lungs are so dysfunctional that a ventilator + 100% oxygen is not enough to sustain you so you are placed on a bypass machine.

the median age of over a 1000 patients with COVID-19 is 48 - short term survival is 55%

yes there are some minor comorbidities - but these are very minor - you do not get offered ECMO unless you are essentially fully functional, living at home, young - I would say over half of memorial stadium on a given Saturday has the extent of comorbidites that the typical ecmo patient has

no elderly, no nursing home patients, no patients with cancer, no severely immunocompromised

https://www.elso.org/Registry/FullCOVID19RegistryDashboard.aspx#TheFilter