Hey folks - as a member of the DawgNation community, please remember to abide by simple rules of civil engagement with other members:
- Please no inappropriate usernames (remember that there may be youngsters in the room)
- Personal attacks on other community members are unacceptable, practice the good manners your mama taught you when engaging with fellow Dawg fans
- Use common sense and respect personal differences in the community: sexual and other inappropriate language or imagery, political rants and belittling the opinions of others will get your posts deleted and result in warnings and/ or banning from the forum
- 3/17/19 UPDATE -- We've updated the permissions for our "Football" and "Commit to the G" recruiting message boards. We aim to be the best free board out there and that has not changed. We do now ask that all of you good people register as a member of our forum in order to see the sugar that is falling from our skies, so to speak.
- Please no inappropriate usernames (remember that there may be youngsters in the room)
- Personal attacks on other community members are unacceptable, practice the good manners your mama taught you when engaging with fellow Dawg fans
- Use common sense and respect personal differences in the community: sexual and other inappropriate language or imagery, political rants and belittling the opinions of others will get your posts deleted and result in warnings and/ or banning from the forum
- 3/17/19 UPDATE -- We've updated the permissions for our "Football" and "Commit to the G" recruiting message boards. We aim to be the best free board out there and that has not changed. We do now ask that all of you good people register as a member of our forum in order to see the sugar that is falling from our skies, so to speak.
Options
COVID-19 Check-in 2.0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
There you go again. I can't believe you are defending a study that was designed to see if HCQ worked and they didn't even test the people for CV, but used symptoms instead, but that is your call. Instead of having a Yale meltdown and calling me names, I would suggest politely making your point and leaving it at that. We disagree on the quality of this study. IMO, it doesn't mean anything positive or negative for HCQ. Let's move on, unless you want to tell me exactly what you think is pseudo science and quackery, and I'll be happy to answer you.
Its not like they are guessing at who has it. There are a set of standards for diagnosing covid in the absence of testing. These standards were used by four infectious disease physicians who were not aware of which participant was receiving HCQ and placebo to determine infection. The vast majority of participants also had a high risk exposure with the rest having moderate risk exposure. Continuing to harp on PCR testing while knowing how the trial was run is incredibly dishonest.
While we parse out this one study that was carried out effectively would anyone like to a take stab at any of the other well run studies showing HCQ is ineffective or maybe even provide a high quality study that shows it works?
This is incredibly dishonest. This study shows HCQ does not work as a prophylactic agent for COVID-19. You jumped on the poorly thought out attack from bank without actually reading the study and you're too invested at this point to jump off even after being proven wrong.
Wrong again, Yale, this is perfectly truthful and objective. I was familiar with that study. I came across it looking to evaluate HCQ. I was interested in the prophylaxis idea. I found the problems very quickly. When I saw the discussion with BW I gave you my previously formed thoughts. BTW, it doesn't mean that I think HCQ works. It just means I think it was an unreliable study. You are getting so emotional about it that I'm beginning to wonder if you were involved with it. I think it could have been a great study. It is a great idea. I would add zinc to one of the arms. But, I would test 100% of the participants at the end of the incubation period if they weren't tested because of symptoms. I think it would have been a great study at that point. 2.7 and 2.2 😥
You can't compare NY, NY CFR with the current CFR for Florida etc. Even though the Florida testing is woefully inadequate the cases as a % of those newly tested is running at 12.6% since March 1st. The comparable % for NY and NJ as at April 14th were 41% and 49% respectively. This indicates that at that time the testing was so poor that only 1 in 4 cases that would be detected today were detected then. The deaths that were occurring at that time and throughout April and May were in part not identified as cases through testing and a result of the high severity of those that were. You would expect that the CFR would be higher when the cases were all requiring hospitalization and a significant number were dying before getting to the hospital.
The other factor is that in Florida the total cases as at June 30th was 150k with 290k coming in July. With an average Case to Death lag of 28 days, 65% of the cases would not yet expect to have resulted in any death determination. Texas and California would also have many deaths yet to happen from cases already confirmed.
Ah you've known about this study for a while and just how deeply flawed it was for a long time but chose not to say anything about it until bank made the same argument several days after I posted the study. Who do you think you are fooling? Yes, it is upsetting watching you and others push a dishonest narrative for political purposes.
The only legitimate criticism for this study would be that it is potentially, slightly under-powered. I can understand that line of reasoning.
No, you are wrong again, Yale. I had read it and I did notice it being discussed with BW for the first time when I commented. Let me take a different approach, Yale. Do you not agree that this study would have been much, much more powerful if they had done an HCQ+zinc arm, and they had tested everybody with a PCR test at the end of the incubation period? We don't know for sure who actually had CV and who didn't. The symptoms mimic many diseases.
I've been gone for a week... glad to see everyone has changed each other's minds and we're all on the same page now. 😂
>>The other factor is that in Florida the total cases as at June 30th was 150k with 290k coming in July. With an average Case to Death lag of 28 days, 65% of the cases would not yet expect to have resulted in any death determination. Texas and California would also have many deaths yet to happen from cases already confirmed.<<
That is why I said this at the bottom of the post:
>>Now, many of the cases are active in the big three, so the numbers will likely get worse, but they shouldn't get anywhere close to NY or CT or Europe in rates.<<
I don't think you can come close to explaining it with testing. Florida actually had worse challenges back in Mar/Apr. It was extremely hard to get a test. NY wasn't great, but it was much better. We are talking 5-10X here on the deaths.
No It wouldn't but there are some people still running clinical trials for it so we will see when those come out. Focus needs to be shifted away from HCQ.
Florida had 21k cases (11%) at the same time that NY had 203k cases (41%). That indicates that NY was missing at a minimum 75% of the cases that Fl was identifying. If so then with similar testing the NY CFR would have been 25% of what it was. Add the fact that FL deaths are likely to more than double over the next 4-5 weeks that means that the CFR will more than double in FL. The treatment has gotten much better due to steroids and Remdesivir and delaying Ventilator use. I don't see what evidence there is that weather is playing a factor.
Well, you know what they say about statistics. FL and NY have roughly the same cases. Tests per MM are almost 2X in favor of NY. Deaths per MM are 1682 for NY and 268 for FL. FL has over a million more seniors and half of NY's seniors come to FL in winter. NY has over 6X the death rate for deaths per MM! Europe's big five have had slightly less cases than FL/CA/TX and they have had over 150K deaths compared to our big three's 20.55K. That is over 7X. S. Africa's cases and deaths are out of control. If you aren't seeing a seasonal shift in death rates you aren't looking hard enough.
I don't have to look hard to FIND a narrative. I am just a mathematician>
What do you do for a living @YaleDawg ? Are you a doctor or in the medical field? Genuinely curious and apologize if that’s already known around here. I’m still a noob
Not choosing any sides 'cause I am not spending my free time reading studies and peer reviews on a virus that we didn't know existed 9 months ago...
However,
I am humored and entertained by two things here - how much "certainty" is being peddled about a virus that we know 8% about...
And secondly, how anyone in this argument has the gall to call another poster out for "political bias" when it is OBVIOUS that just about everyone in this discussion "suffers" from that ailment.
If anyone wants to disqualify another for political bias, then they have to leave the discussion first...
Glass houses
Pot and kettle
Speck and plank
Just sayin'...
Would it be logical to assume the death rate of the virus is the same everywhere regardless of differences in population density, age, health, etc? Or regardless of climate and geographic differences? Or regardless of treatment advances?
That doesn't seem logical to me. Even if you take the position that you've got to start somewhere, the numbers for NY are so incomplete that it seems an illogical place to start. I'm not advocating for sunshine pumping from the number crunchers, but I can't help but see doom and gloom in some of these predictions.
I 100% admit political bias. I'll let others determine which side I lean.
Can the Mods ask the IT guys to create a "Countdown to Kickoff" time stamp that attaches to each post on this thread?
I didn't say anything about a finding a narrative. I said look at the numbers. NY has over 80% more tests per million than FL. If somebody has missed cases, it is probably FL. FL has a much older population. Now they have more cases. NY has >5X more deaths and almost 6X more deaths per million.
You said i was not looking hard enough.
FWIW a good analyst doesn't just look at the numbers, they look below the surface. You are just looking at one variable not the multitude that go into the result.
Or FL not counting deaths! The Ny testing has greatly improved and for July are way overtesting. I guess that has nothing to do with the 1.1% %Pos skewing the average. Let's be charitable and say it's contract tracing which reflects well on their strategy and make them more reactive to future spikes.