Covid19 - clinical / epidemiological thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter deleted59964
  • Start date Start date
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
There is no control arm and this is nothing but sensationalism. it is ****ty science to quote 1 case.



Don't. The article is used to drive up hype.

I have it on good authority that other centers showed no benefit.

0:05Sad Trombone - Gaming Sound Effect (HD)
 

0:05Sad Trombone - Gaming Sound Effect (HD)
It's funny how the gilead ppl are criticizing this study which, unlike their own study, was a controlled trial and randomized. This gives you an idea of the level of bias coming from their side.
 

0:05Sad Trombone - Gaming Sound Effect (HD)

well that sucks

can we please have all clinical trials be well designed already? i'm seeing way too many crappy studies that well designed negative studies are actually far more worthwhile even though they're disappointing
 
So our hospital and the one I was rotating at previously has switched to doing all video laryngoscope intubations. We primarily have cmac in every room, but there are glidescopes around if we need to switch and Mcgraths in our intubation bags. I am guessing that we are doing this in the hopes of decreasing any potential aerosolization. But, is there any real difference between VL vs DL in terms of aerosols? I've never heard of or seen a study done measuring that. As far as I can tell, 1st chance success and speed of actual intubation are similar enough that it shouldn't matter. I understand that in certainly situations VL is likely more reliable for 1st chance success (emergency, in line stabilization etc), but I don't know why we are all the sudden relying on VL for every intubation.
 
So our hospital and the one I was rotating at previously has switched to doing all video laryngoscope intubations. We primarily have cmac in every room, but there are glidescopes around if we need to switch and Mcgraths in our intubation bags. I am guessing that we are doing this in the hopes of decreasing any potential aerosolization. But, is there any real difference between VL vs DL in terms of aerosols? I've never heard of or seen a study done measuring that. As far as I can tell, 1st chance success and speed of actual intubation are similar enough that it shouldn't matter. I understand that in certainly situations VL is likely more reliable for 1st chance success (emergency, in line stabilization etc), but I don't know why we are all the sudden relying on VL for every intubation.
Distance from doc to airway is larger with VL vs DL is the reasoning I believe.
 
Distance from doc to airway is larger with VL vs DL is the reasoning I believe.
By how much though? I mean really. I'm still standing at the head of the bed, the handle in my hand, with my belly very near the pts head. Like my position DOES not change while doing DL vs VL. The ONLY thing that changes is that I dont have to hyperextend the neck as much. But I still have to open the airway, I still have to get the persons tongue out of the way. I still have to insert the blade along the tongue down to the base. Personally, I dont feel like there is much of a difference.
 
well that sucks

can we please have all clinical trials be well designed already? i'm seeing way too many crappy studies that well designed negative studies are actually far more worthwhile even though they're disappointing
Odds of us pulling a paradigm-shifting drug out of thin air to treat this, in a penicillin-first-ever-antibiotic kind of way, seems low. So low that it feels foolish to be hanging our hopes on any of them and irresponsible to be dangling these hopes in front of the public.

We'd probably be better off if no one amped up the public or made confident declarations about all the **** we're throwing at the wall. These viruses are teflon. If it was possible to smack them down, Pfizer And Friends would've marketed something for the common cold a long time ago. Instead the best we've got is crap like Nyquil.
 
By how much though? I mean really. I'm still standing at the head of the bed, the handle in my hand, with my belly very near the pts head. Like my position DOES not change while doing DL vs VL. The ONLY thing that changes is that I dont have to hyperextend the neck as much. But I still have to open the airway, I still have to get the persons tongue out of the way. I still have to insert the blade along the tongue down to the base. Personally, I dont feel like there is much of a difference.

bad technique? have you seen some people DL? they put their face within inches
 
By how much though? I mean really. I'm still standing at the head of the bed, the handle in my hand, with my belly very near the pts head. Like my position DOES not change while doing DL vs VL. The ONLY thing that changes is that I dont have to hyperextend the neck as much. But I still have to open the airway, I still have to get the persons tongue out of the way. I still have to insert the blade along the tongue down to the base. Personally, I dont feel like there is much of a difference.
Some people are putting plastic boxes over the patients heads or sheets and just trying to use the screen as much as possible.
So I have heard but haven’t seen.
 
Any thoughts on using IV/PO disinfectants on patient? There’s some really good in vitro data showing efficacy and just wondering if anyones trying it or seen a trial for it. This might be the miracle drug we are waiting for. Buy Lysol or bleach stock now because I’m predicting this could be big.
 
Odds of us pulling a paradigm-shifting drug out of thin air to treat this, in a penicillin-first-ever-antibiotic kind of way, seems low. So low that it feels foolish to be hanging our hopes on any of them and irresponsible to be dangling these hopes in front of the public.

We'd probably be better off if no one amped up the public or made confident declarations about all the **** we're throwing at the wall. These viruses are teflon. If it was possible to smack them down, Pfizer And Friends would've marketed something for the common cold a long time ago. Instead the best we've got is crap like Nyquil.

Well i'm hoping for at least more well designed studies. I'm seeing way too many crappy covid studies that Trump's comments are looking strangely reasonable in comparison. And that's not good.
 
1587777914094.png
 
“We are recruiting patients with recently diagnosed COVID infection and hope to show whether early treatment can keep them from having to be admitted to the hospital,” co-principal investigator Christine Johnston, an associate professor of medicine at UW, said today in a news release. “We are studying whether the early treatment of COVID-19 prevents viral pneumonia and also seeing if the medications decrease viral shedding, which could have a potential benefit of reduced transmission of COVID-19.”

The trial will gauge the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine as well as a combination of the drug with azithromycin, an antibiotic.

Two cohorts of outpatients will be enrolled in the trial, in high-risk and low-risk categories. Patients who are older than 60 or have underlying conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, obesity or lung problems are considered high-risk. Patients who are aged 18 through 59 without such conditions are considered low-risk.

Coronavirus Live Updates: The latest COVID-19 developments in Seattle and the world of tech
More than 600 patients in all will be enrolled at sites across the country, including UW as well as medical facilities in Boston, New Orleans, Chicago and Syracuse, N.Y.

The study will measure nasal viral shedding by asking study participants to collect daily nasal swabs for 14 days. Participants will also have their heart rhythm monitored to warn of any cardiac toxicity.

The viral shedding pattern will be compared between the different treatments. If a treatment leads to faster clearance of viral shedding, it could theoretically decrease the risk of passing the virus on to others.

 
It appears Brazil will be the test case for Covid 19. Their medical system won't be able to handle the volume of infected patients. Herd immunity or a vaccine appears to be the only solution.


Meanwhile, President Jair Bolsonaro has shown no sign of wavering from his insistence that COVID-19 is a relatively minor disease and that broad social-distancing measures are not needed to stop it. He has said only Brazilians at high risk should be isolated.

In Manaus, the biggest city in the Amazon, officials said a cemetery has been forced to dig mass graves because there have been so many deaths. Workers have been burying 100 corpses a day — triple the pre-virus average of burials.
 
@BLADEMDA - I can't keep score. Where do you stand currently? Please, don't respond with another news article. I believe you've said recently you'd take HCQ/Plaquenil/Remdesevir. Anything else? I don't understand why you can't let scientists do the work and let the chips fall where they may before latching onto any and every first or last ditch effort at treating/preventing viral illness that isn't a vaccine.
 


In the USA the actual number of Covid + cases are 15-50 X higher than the cases being officially reported. We know this from the immunological data from several cities. The actual mortality from Covid 19 is around 0.2%. The facts are clear that Covid 19 is highly infectious but not as lethal as initial data suggested.
 
@BLADEMDA - I can't keep score. Where do you stand currently? Please, don't respond with another news article. I believe you've said recently you'd take HCQ/Plaquenil/Remdesevir. Anything else? I don't understand why you can't let scientists do the work and let the chips fall where they may before latching onto any and every first or last ditch effort at treating/preventing viral illness that isn't a vaccine.

I still think the facts are not in on HCQ for mild/moderate Covid + patients. I'm waiting on those studies in the next 2-4 weeks. I was always skeptical HCQ could treat severe cases based on the data from Italy where mortality was very high.

Remdesivir is another example where moderate cases of Covid + patients can be helped. I doubt Remdesivir does much once a patients requires ventilatory support.

IL-6 inhibitors are valuable in treating the inflammatory process/cytokine storm in many ICU patients. I expect much more data on these drugs.

Immunotherapy from Regeneron in August/September is most likely the best treatment for Covid 19 on a large scale. We have convalescent plasma now but that won't be sufficient for the case volume.

Finally, I predict a vaccine by Moderna in December 2020. Then, several more vaccines by April 2021.

While many of you like to bash me I bet there are hundreds if not thousands of physicians prescribing HCQ to their patients. The same will hold true for Remdesivir once Gilead makes that drug widely available.

I already know the response from most of you. I disagree that my comments above are not data driven and are "last ditch efforts." In fact, for the drugs to actually show efficacy they must be given early enough in the infectious process to make a difference.
 
While many of you like to bash me I bet there are hundreds if not thousands of physicians prescribing HCQ to their patients. The same will hold true for Remdesivir once Gilead makes that drug widely available.

I already know the response from most of you. I disagree that my comments above are not data driven and are "last ditch efforts." In fact, for the drugs to actually show efficacy they must be given early enough in the infectious process to make a difference.

I don't think anyone actually enjoys bashing you. I think you've married anything and everything out there before a verdict is reached. Many have criticized you for that because, as you should know and understand, as a physician scientist until we have real good evidence for something the danger is that we could be giving something that is actually harming critically ill patients and at best is doing nothing. First Do No Harm. And that's my belief currently for HCQ/plaquenil/remdesevir. I want to see good solid evidence because I am a well-trained physician scientist and I believe that should mean something and stand for something in the face of what we have currently witnessed. I refuse to buy into the tearing down of expertise that Trump and Navarro have bought, sold, and delivered to the country. And yes, unfortunately thousands of critical care physicians have been hog-tied by both poor data and our President's words into prescribing Hcq which, in the end, we hope will have proven to do nothing but at this point may appear to be causing real harm.
 


In the USA the actual number of Covid + cases are 15-50 X higher than the cases being officially reported. We know this from the immunological data from several cities. The actual mortality from Covid 19 is around 0.2%. The facts are clear that Covid 19 is highly infectious but not as lethal as initial data suggested.
You're a physician yet you seem to get all your info/knowledge on this scientific+medical issue from MSM sources. It doesn't even seem like you have a basic understanding of how to interpret studies or evaluate the quality of a study. You'll take data/results from any article or anything that's published and use it as evidence, as long as it supports your beliefs/opinions/agenda. This is a forum full of MD's. These stats you cite are from really flawed, misleading studies that have been trashed by ppl who actually know what they're talking about. Each post like this makes you lose more and more credibility.
 


In the USA the actual number of Covid + cases are 15-50 X higher than the cases being officially reported. We know this from the immunological data from several cities. The actual mortality from Covid 19 is around 0.2%. The facts are clear that Covid 19 is highly infectious but not as lethal as initial data suggested.

we know there are not 50x infections and we know the mortality is well above 0.2%. Please stop using terrible data. You grasp at straws that show things you want it to show rather than just sitting back and waiting for actual results and numbers. You also suggested we would have a max of 15,000 deaths in the country from this disease.
 
Last edited:
@BLADEMDA - I can't keep score. Where do you stand currently? Please, don't respond with another news article. I believe you've said recently you'd take HCQ/Plaquenil/Remdesevir. Anything else? I don't understand why you can't let scientists do the work and let the chips fall where they may before latching onto any and every first or last ditch effort at treating/preventing viral illness that isn't a vaccine.
He hasn't tried Lysol yet. And UV lights, with eye covers. 😉
 
While many of you like to bash me I bet there are hundreds if not thousands of physicians prescribing HCQ to their patients. The same will hold true for Remdesivir once Gilead makes that drug widely available.

For gods sake lighten up nobody is bashing you. When you throw anything at the wall and hope it sticks and copy and paste bomb, expect to catch some flak🙂
 
"I bet there are hundreds if not thousands of physicians prescribing HCQ to their patients."

"In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people"[1]) is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so".[citation needed]

Other names for the fallacy include common belief fallacy or appeal to (common) belief,[2][3] appeal to the majority,[4] appeal to the masses,[5] appeal to popularity,[6][7] argument from consensus,[8] authority of the many,[8][9] bandwagon fallacy,[7][10] consensus gentium (Latin for "agreement of the people"),[10] democratic fallacy,[11] and mob appeal.[12]
"
 
80% of Trump's press conferences involve him stating that "many people are saying" or something similar.

My point was that I'm not prescribing these meds to patients. There are thousands of other physicians who are. So, FWIW, many physicians are hopeful that while the data is lacking for HCQ and Remdesivir these meds may help to keep a particular patient out of the ICU. I have read the data on HCQ and the side-effects which include Cardiac arrythmias and retinal damage. I am waiting on other studies to truly evaluate HCQ for mildly infectious patients.

The data is showing that the number of infected in the USA is indeed 15-50 X greater than the published number of Covid + cases. That brings the mortality rate way down. Since we are using this data to make policy decisions the actual mortality rate is very important.
 

 
we know there are not 50x infections and we know the mortality is well above 0.2%. Please stop using terrible data. You grasp at straws that show things you want it to show rather than just sitting back and waiting for actual results and numbers.

True number of infections and mortality rate are things we DO NOT know right now. It’s just as wrong to sit back and say we know mortality is well above x%. Heed your own advice. His point remains, the numbers are lower than previously thought and that is a pretty big deal.
 
The data is showing that the number of infected in the USA is indeed 15-50 X greater than the published number of Covid + cases. That brings the mortality rate way down. Since we are using this data to make policy decisions the actual mortality rate is very important.

Just stop. You fail basic statistical analysis if you believe those studies.

My guesstimate is the number is about 10x, but that's just a guess.
 
True number of infections and mortality rate are things we DO NOT know right now. It’s just as wrong to sit back and say we know mortality is well above x%. Heed your own advice. His point remains, the numbers are lower than previously thought and that is a pretty big deal.

My point is that WE DO NOT KNOW. What we do know is that suggestions it is 50x are based on horrible attempts at "science" and should not be part of any legitimate discussion.
 
My point is that WE DO NOT KNOW. What we do know is that suggestions it is 50x are based on horrible attempts at "science" and should not be part of any legitimate discussion.

I agree with you there I hate the fact that the media grabbed on to the Santa Clara study and we had headlines that said “CORONAVIRUS 80x LESS DEADLY THAN THOUGHT”. That is more sensationalism that I despise.

It is horrible science you are looking at it for numbers. BUT, that is the problem. The Santa Clara study serves 2 very important purposes.

1. Serves as essentially a functionality study. Populations can be studied quickly and effectively to assess seroprevalence. PROVIDED you have a good test.

2. It’s a clap back at the ICL data way back when this thing kicked off implying drastic death numbers based on wild assumptions.

That’s it. The data they got out sucks. But that wasn’t the point.
 
True number of infections and mortality rate are things we DO NOT know right now. It’s just as wrong to sit back and say we know mortality is well above x%. Heed your own advice. His point remains, the numbers are lower than previously thought and that is a pretty big deal.

How can you say we don't know something and then a couple sentences later say we know something?
 
My point was that I'm not prescribing these meds to patients. There are thousands of other physicians who are. So, FWIW, many physicians are hopeful that while the data is lacking for HCQ and Remdesivir these meds may help to keep a particular patient out of the ICU. I have read the data on HCQ and the side-effects which include Cardiac arrythmias and retinal damage. I am waiting on other studies to truly evaluate HCQ for mildly infectious patients.

The data is showing that the number of infected in the USA is indeed 15-50 X greater than the published number of Covid + cases. That brings the mortality rate way down. Since we are using this data to make policy decisions the actual mortality rate is very important.

Stop. Just stop. The fact that thousands of physicians are prescribing something (recommended by PUSA) in the time of a viral pandemic means nothing. Close to less than nothing given the available evidence. Just slow the F down, wait for some good evidence, and proceed.
 


In the USA the actual number of Covid + cases are 15-50 X higher than the cases being officially reported. We know this from the immunological data from several cities. The actual mortality from Covid 19 is around 0.2%. The facts are clear that Covid 19 is highly infectious but not as lethal as initial data suggested.

The Santa Clara and LA County Serosurveys were conducted using the Premier POC antibody test (Chinese-manufactured). The authors of this study used the manufacturer's data to assume a 99.5% specificity (this is all spelled out in their methods section). In the discussion section, the authors state that "if new estimates indicate test specificity to be less than 97.9%, our SARS-CoV-2 prevalence estimate would change from 2.8% to less than 1%".

The FDA and CDC have not yet been able to conduct independent analysis to confirm the specificity and sensitivity of these tests. But another group did, and they've just released their results. COVID-19 Testing Project.

Guess what the specificity is? 97.2%.
 
What's interesting is the NYC data. I can't find any sources that state which antibody test was used. But, the fact that they found a 21% seroprevalence makes their results more believable, even with a lower-specificity test. (The PPV increases greatly with increased prevalence).

Also interesting is the fact that apparently 15% of OB patients had positive PCR tests, so this further supports the possibility of high prevalence in that region.

Let's say we take the 20% prevalence at face value. The population of NYC is 18M, and there have been ~12,000 reported deaths. Some estimates give up to 18,000 including "excess deaths" that have not been counted. So let's call it 15,000 deaths.

That gives an IFR of 0.39% in NYC. I think this is a best-case scenario, and the true IFR is probably 0.5-1.0%. Assuming an attack rate of 80% (influenza is ~10%), this is going to be 40-80x worse than the seasonal flu.
 
Some regions are conducting serosurveys using a much more sensitive/specific ELISA antibody test (this requires a full blood draw and not fingerprick). San Miguel County in CO is doing this, and from what I can tell, several academic centers have plans to do this. I think these results will be much more informative.
 
.
What's interesting is the NYC data. I can't find any sources that state which antibody test was used. But, the fact that they found a 21% seroprevalence makes their results more believable, even with a lower-specificity test. (The PPV increases greatly with increased prevalence).

Also interesting is the fact that apparently 15% of OB patients had positive PCR tests, so this further supports the possibility of high prevalence in that region.

Let's say we take the 20% prevalence at face value. The population of NYC is 18M, and there have been ~12,000 reported deaths. Some estimates give up to 18,000 including "excess deaths" that have not been counted. So let's call it 15,000 deaths.

That gives an IFR of 0.39% in NYC. I think this is a best-case scenario, and the true IFR is probably 0.5-1.0%. Assuming an attack rate of 80% (influenza is ~10%), this is going to be 40-80x worse than the seasonal flu.
Of course it's much worse than seasonal flu. It's not rocket science, it's f-ing common sense and some knowledge of history.

Why? Because we are dealing with a virus the human body has not seen before, as with the Spanish flu epidemic. Meaning that, until we have a vaccine or a cure, natural selection will continue.

This is like breeding dogs. Dog races have certain characteristics because they have been bred for them for ages. We were their "natural" selection. Those who did not qualify were not encouraged to multiply, they and their descendants even killed. This is how we got to genetic lines that carry certain advantageous genes, that we identify as various races.

The same way, humans who could not resist certain diseases in history (plague, flu, whatever) were killed, and their genetic lines died, while those resistant to disease, or able to prevent/treat it, multiplied (think sickle cell disease in malaria zones). Evolution is REAL.

That also applies to influenza. Our influenza mortality, even to H1N1 (Spanish flu, swine flu), is much lower than in 1918 because we got some vaccines, and because most of the current population has the proper genetics and immunity to fight it (unlike many of those who were naturally selected to die during the pandemic). But it will take a while and a good amount of natural selection until Covid-19 gets to influenza levels of annual mortality.

That's exactly what herd immunity means, It means that we have a population of naturally selected or vaccinated individuals, who are able to fight and defend against the virus, hence decreasing its transmission and risks for those who lack those immune defenses (or are otherwise too weak to fight the virus). But it will take years to get there, if ever, especially if this virus mutates a lot, like other coronaviruses do. One of the reasons we don't have a vaccine against common cold is that it would be very hard to create one.

We're still very lucky. Imagine this virus killing as many patients as MERS (35%), while being as contagious as it is. It's lucky that most viruses naturally-select for milder or more chronic strains, because killing the host too fast results in decreased transmission and possible disappearance.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Some regions are conducting serosurveys using a much more sensitive/specific ELISA antibody test (this requires a full blood draw and not fingerprick). San Miguel County in CO is doing this, and from what I can tell, several academic centers have plans to do this. I think these results will be much more informative.

I'm getting mine on tuesday!

Doing a COVID positive case on monday, does this mean I need another test in a week if i'm negative?
 
Top