COVID19 Global Pandemic: 3,500,000 + Confirmed Cases - Page 77 - Political Discussion Topics - 33andrain Weather Discussion Community Jump to content
NJwxguy78

COVID19 Global Pandemic: 3,500,000 + Confirmed Cases

Recommended Posts

This was yesterday's data.

 

image.png.e66158481e41110985f2e6e69c5faa35.png

NYS: 2.5% positives (1,329 positives on 54,054 tests), 17.2% overall

NYC: 2.5% (613/24,933), 20.4% overall

xNYC: 2.5% (716/29,121), 14.5% overall

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CT doing well-testing close to 10,000 people per day with approx 2-4% positive.  Deaths down to single digits yesterday and hospitalizations down 80% from peak.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, WxInTheBronx said:

This was yesterday's data.

 

image.png.e66158481e41110985f2e6e69c5faa35.png

NYS: 2.5% positives (1,329 positives on 54,054 tests), 17.2% overall

NYC: 2.5% (613/24,933), 20.4% overall

xNYC: 2.5% (716/29,121), 14.5% overall

Today's update:

 

image.png.2131a6409a0c20f3a6fa276f22343e5c.png

NYC at 28% hospital space and 31% ICU space. Though the target date remains 08 June for reopening, so perhaps a deal was struck. Who knows.

 

Testing results:


NYS: 1.7% positives (1,045 positives on 61,642 tests), 16.8% overall

NYC: 2.2% (495/22,585), 20% overall

xNYC: 1.4% (550/39,057), 14.1% overall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, WxInTheBronx said:

Today's update:

 

image.png.2131a6409a0c20f3a6fa276f22343e5c.png

NYC at 28% hospital space and 31% ICU space. Though the target date remains 08 June for reopening, so perhaps a deal was struck. Who knows.

 

Testing results:


NYS: 1.7% positives (1,045 positives on 61,642 tests), 16.8% overall

NYC: 2.2% (495/22,585), 20% overall

xNYC: 1.4% (550/39,057), 14.1% overall

positive test result #'s are very good.   R# must be really low right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Brian5671 said:

positive test result #'s are very good.   R# must be really low right now.

Currently estimated at 0.78.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Washington Post reported:

 

Nearly 44,000 more people have died since the beginning of 2020 than in the same period last year — an increase of 24 percent — Spain’s National Statistics Institute reported Wednesday.

 

This data raises grave questions about the official statistics Spain has been reporting for COVID-19 fatalities. On May 24, Spain had recorded 28,752 COVID-19 fatalities. On May 25, Spain slashed its coronavirus fatalities to 26,837. On May 26, the count increased to 27,117. Over the next 7 days, the official total increased by 10 to 27,127 on June 2. The excess deaths data, during a time when no alternative factors could explain more than a tiny fraction of the excess deaths, strongly argues that the downward revision of the COVID-19 toll and virtual disappearance of such new fatalities is an artifact of a new methodology that is not representative of the underlying on-the-ground situation. Data from Italy and France, which are on somewhat different parts of the curve, argue that approximately 50-100 people continue to die each day in Spain rather than the 1.4 people per day Spain is now reporting.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

The Washington Post reported:

 

Nearly 44,000 more people have died since the beginning of 2020 than in the same period last year — an increase of 24 percent — Spain’s National Statistics Institute reported Wednesday.

 

This data raises grave questions about the official statistics Spain has been reporting for COVID-19 fatalities. On May 24, Spain had recorded 28,752 COVID-19 fatalities. On May 25, Spain slashed its coronavirus fatalities to 26,837. On May 26, the count increased to 27,117. Over the next 7 days, the official total increased by 10 to 27,127 on June 2. The excess deaths data, during a time when no alternative factors could explain more than a tiny fraction of the excess deaths, strongly argues that the downward revision of the COVID-19 toll and virtual disappearance of such new fatalities is an artifact of a new methodology that is not representative of the underlying on-the-ground situation. Data from Italy and France, which are on somewhat different parts of the curve, argue that approximately 50-100 people continue to die each day in Spain rather than the 1.4 people per day Spain is now reporting.

Huh. It's like they hired someone from Florida to keep and update their records for them.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dr. Boulware's paper was just published in the NEJM showing that HCQ is not effective for post-exposure prophylaxis in a randomized, placebo-controlled, double blind clinical trial (the gold standard), which is what I've predicted we'd see. Results/conclusions are below.

 

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2016638?query=featured_home

 

So we now know that HCQ is not effective in hospitalized patients as per many, many studies (even the now tarnished Lancet study might only mean it's not deadly, but it never implied efficacy) and now it's not effective for post-exposure prophylaxis.  I suppose it's theoretically possible it would be effective in mildly symptomatic patients or could be a true prophylactic, but it's highly unlikely. I'd like to see us close the book on this failed experiment and start spending our precious clinical resources on treatments that might actually work. 

 

RESULTS

We enrolled 821 asymptomatic participants. Overall, 87.6% of the participants (719 of 821) reported a high-risk exposure to a confirmed Covid-19 contact. The incidence of new illness compatible with Covid-19 did not differ significantly between participants receiving hydroxychloroquine (49 of 414 [11.8%]) and those receiving placebo (58 of 407 [14.3%]); the absolute difference was −2.4 percentage points (95% confidence interval, −7.0 to 2.2; P=0.35). Side effects were more common with hydroxychloroquine than with placebo (40.1% vs. 16.8%), but no serious adverse reactions were reported.

 

CONCLUSIONS

After high-risk or moderate-risk exposure to Covid-19, hydroxychloroquine did not prevent illness compatible with Covid-19 or confirmed infection when used as postexposure prophylaxis within 4 days after exposure.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ru848789 said:

Dr. Boulware's paper was just published in the NEJM showing that HCQ is not effective for post-exposure prophylaxis in a randomized, placebo-controlled, double blind clinical trial (the gold standard), which is what I've predicted we'd see. Results/conclusions are below.

 

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2016638?query=featured_home

 

So we now know that HCQ is not effective in hospitalized patients as per many, many studies (even the now tarnished Lancet study might only mean it's not deadly, but it never implied efficacy) and now it's not effective for post-exposure prophylaxis.  I suppose it's theoretically possible it would be effective in mildly symptomatic patients or could be a true prophylactic, but it's highly unlikely. I'd like to see us close the book on this failed experiment and start spending our precious clinical resources on treatments that might actually work. 

 

RESULTS

We enrolled 821 asymptomatic participants. Overall, 87.6% of the participants (719 of 821) reported a high-risk exposure to a confirmed Covid-19 contact. The incidence of new illness compatible with Covid-19 did not differ significantly between participants receiving hydroxychloroquine (49 of 414 [11.8%]) and those receiving placebo (58 of 407 [14.3%]); the absolute difference was −2.4 percentage points (95% confidence interval, −7.0 to 2.2; P=0.35). Side effects were more common with hydroxychloroquine than with placebo (40.1% vs. 16.8%), but no serious adverse reactions were reported.

 

CONCLUSIONS

After high-risk or moderate-risk exposure to Covid-19, hydroxychloroquine did not prevent illness compatible with Covid-19 or confirmed infection when used as postexposure prophylaxis within 4 days after exposure.

 

This result also throws more doubt on that Indian study supposedly showing HCQ worked to prevent COVID infections.  Thought I posted about it here, but couldn't find it - anyway had posted about it a few days ago elsewhere and my opinion is that this "paper" contains some of the shoddiest science I've seen in quite some time (and  Dr. Boulware was skeptical of the early results released as the reported outcome of prophylaxis wasn't accompanied by data).

The "study" based HCQ dosing history on telephone interviews of patients weeks after they would've been dosed. At least all the other retrospective observational studies done on HCQ and other treatments, to date, usually had clear medical records of patient status at the start of a study and dosing regimen during the study and, of course, outcomes/observations.

 

"Measures: A brief 20-item interview schedule was developed to elicit the information on key issues...a history of prophylactic HCQ intake with dosing details was also obtained."

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1e26FOJfF4akP7-aMQjE_BGxTHBjrgo1e/view

And that dose response curve is something I would've laughed at if someone brought it to me to review. Connecting data points with a dotted line that aren't known to be linear segments and drawing a "trend line" through points that are all over the place? A few doses leading to a worse outcome, then a few more leading to a better outcome? This is 9th grade level data analysis. An MD friend of mine who conducts clinical research had this to say:

This isn't science... a 20 item interview???? Who developed this technique for sampling? Not to mention sample size. Who would release this to the scientific community? Are you sure that's a trend line? It looks like it belongs on another study. We can wait for all the rigorous studies we want, but this is a waste of time and resources. I would expect this to appear in one of Trump's briefings, with the "trend line" drawn in sharpie.

23NPUsJ.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some good news on tocilizumab, an IL-6 receptor antagonist (aimed at reducing the "cytokine storm" of respiratory over-inflammation seen in many patients), which was shown to reduce mortality by 45% in patients with severe COVID symptoms in this observationally controlled (not placebo-controlled, so not the highest standard) trial run out of the U of Michigan.  This is just a preprint, though, so the usual caveats, especially as the treatment group was slightly younger and slightly less likely to have underlying pulmonary disease (so the effect might be exaggerated a bit), but I'm guessing this might be enough for this to become part of standard care for such patients, despite the finding that it also doubled the risk of superinfection.  

 

Question: Can therapy with the IL-6 receptor antagonist tocilizumab improve outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19 illness requiring mechanical ventilation? 

 

Findings: In this observational, controlled study of 154 patients, receipt of tocilizumab was associated with a 45% reduction in the hazard of death, despite twice the frequency of superinfection (54% vs 26%), both of which were statistically significant findings. 

 

Meaning: Tocilizumab therapy may improve survival in patients with COVID-19 illness requiring mechanical ventilation. These results can inform clinical practice pending the results of randomized clinical trials

 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.29.20117358v1.full.pdf

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Update on Sweden, as the architect of their much more "hands off" approach to lockdowns and distancing is now admitting they probably didn't get it quite right, as Sweden continues to do badly especially relative to their similarly situated Nordic neighbors, who took much more aggressive interventions, as Sweden has about 8-10X the death rate of Norway/Finland with similar population density. Sweden now also has the highest per capita death rate in the world over the past few weeks. 

Anders Tegnell, Sweden’s state epidemiologist, agreed with the interviewer on Sveriges Radio that too many people had died in the country. “If we would encounter the same disease, with exactly what we know about it today, I think we would land midway between what Sweden did and what the rest of the world did,” said Mr Tegnell in the interview broadcast on Wednesday morning.

Mr Tegnell’s admission is striking as for months he has criticised other countries’ lockdowns and insisted that Sweden’s approach was more sustainable despite heavy international scrutiny of its stubbornly high death toll.

The public mood in Sweden appears to have shifted somewhat since neighbouring Norway and Denmark last week opened their borders to each other but not their close neighbour. Sweden has reported a much higher death toll relative to its population size than Norway.


https://www.ft.com/content/dae6d006-9adc-46d5-9b4e-79a7841022e8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might go to the H+H Gotham Health location on Gerard Avenue at some point this weekend to get a Covid test. Our work is going to (again) reopen next week, hopefully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...