Coronavirus Updates

[Innula Zenovka]

First trial for potential Covid-19 drug shows it has no effect

WHO draft put online states remdesivir does not benefit severe coronavirus patients

www.theguardian.com

 

[Aribeth Zelin]

Started out 'wild' yeast today - though, for some reason spouse used open all-purpose flour instead of the wheat

 

[danielravennest]

Thanks, we saw that yesterday but that is a huge amount of yeast to use before it expires!

I mentioned in another thread that I tried some Fleischman's yeast that was 8 years past it's use by date. Still worked fine.

 

[Kara Spengler]

I mentioned in another thread that I tried some Fleischman's yeast that was 8 years past it's use by date. Still worked fine.

Cool, usually when I found myself with long expired yeast I just bought some more because it was so cheep.

 

[Casey Pelous]

Started out 'wild' yeast today - though, for some reason spouse used open all-purpose flour instead of the wheat

It'll work. I have a batch on slow-motion burble in my fridge. Once you get it going, you can refrigerate it and just feed it once a week. Take it out the night before you're going to bake with it, and feed it then, too.

It is really all pretty loosy-goosy -- remember, when people came up with this, technology was pretty darned limited but they still managed to come up with bread most days.

 

[Sovereignty]

No definitive studies have yet been published, or released prior to publishing, regarding hydroxychloroquine and COVID. Seheult discusses the situation in today's MedCram video.

He points out that in the case of the retrospective study of patients at VA hospitals, the patients given the drug were older and sicker than patients who did not receive the drug (perhaps read: compassionate use). Therefore that retrospective (i.e., historical and uncontrolled) study does not really answer any questions.

An additional study not mentioned in this video was done in New York state, but the results have not been released. Though Gov. Cuomo had talked about releasing preliminary results, it has not happened.

As far as I know, Seheult has no interest in the outcome of these studies other than the hope that some safe, effective therapeutic treatment can be found.

 

[Romana]

Faux News never learn.


The "right" like to say "the left can't meme" (incorrect, of course--they just don't like the memes). But the right for sure can't be funny. Not intentionally, anyway.

 

[Sovereignty]

Sorry, but why do I need to watch it?

Serious question -- Oxford University and the Nuffield Foundation think the trial is worth running and the practice where I'm registered thinks it's worth participating in the trials.

That suggests to me that two of the top medical research bodies in the country, if not the world, don't know whether or not hydroxychloroquine works for people suffering from Covid-19, or whether it works for some groups of people or not others, or whether it works but there are various specific contraindications, but they think it worth spending a lot of time and money trying to find out, and my GP's practice thinks it won't do any harm, at least, for me to participate in a proper double-blind trial (meaning neither they nor I know whether I'm getting the hydroxychloroquine or a placebo) under their medical supervision if, God forbid, I fall ill from being infected with the virus.

What else do I need to know from Dr YouTube that I can't find out by asking my GP at the time, should I choose to participate in the study?

What does he know that Oxford University, the Nuffield Foundation and my local medical practice don't?

ETA: I use "Dr YouTube" as shorthand for anyone offering medical advice on their own YouTube channel on their own initiative, rather as when I was being treated for cancer I was warned by everyone involved in my treatment that, if I wanted to know anything, they'd be glad to explain as best they could, and that I shouldn't consult "Dr Google" but, instead, to stick to the NHS site, Cancer Research UK, Macmillan Cancer Relief and other similar bodies.

ETA 2: Don't know if anyone finds this run-down on recent surveys useful

Hydroxychloroquine and coronavirus: a guide to the scientific studies so far

The drug – now a partisan wedge issue – has fueled hype and hope, but evidence of its effectiveness remains limited

www.theguardian.com

1) Not all Dr YouTube's are created equal, but I agree that your own doctor should be the best source of information for you.

2) Seheult provides a valuable service by talking about subjects within his area of expertise (board certified in pulmonology, ICU, sleep, and internal medicine and his current practice includes COVID patients in ICU). The news media does a horrible job in reporting on what he talks about [see the soap opera stories on hydroxychloroquine], not to mention the sensationalist Dr. YouTube's out there.

3) Yes, the medical community is quite interested in what Remdesivir can do--partly because it has already gone through trials proving its safety. That means it could take less time to bring it into mainstream use. They just have to determine if it is effective.

ETA: "Safety" is a relative term in a medical context.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

1) Not all Dr YouTube's are created equal, but I agree that your own doctor should be the best source of information for you.

2) Seheult provides a valuable service by talking about subjects within his area of expertise (board certified in pulmonology, ICU, sleep, and internal medicine and his current practice includes COVID patients in ICU). The news media does a horrible job in reporting on what he talks about [see the soap opera stories on hydroxychloroquine], not to mention the sensationalist Dr. YouTube's out there.

3) Yes, the medical community is quite interested in what Remdesivir can do--partly because it has already gone through trials proving its safety. That means it could take less time to bring it into mainstream use. They just have to determine if it is effective.

Yes, but my point is that when you've got proper large-scale double-blind testing going on for therapeutic drugs administered at various stages of the disease, Recovery for drugs to be administered when the patient is in hospital (i.e. 8 days or more after first becoming symptomatic) or Principle for drugs to be administered earlier on, after the patient becomes symptomatic but while still under the care of their GP with PRINCIPLE.

I just don't see the point of watching YouTube videos of people proposing their favoured interpretation of the bits and pieces of inconclusive research that are all we have avalable right now when there are, at this moment, large-scale trials going on under the auspices of large and reputable reasearch bodies, which should settle these questions far more definitively than someone on YouTube doing an evidence review that can only lead to "looks potentially promising but more research needed".

Fortunately, more research is going on, very rapidly, in the form of clinical trials large enough to offer confidence in the results, so why not leave the researchers to get on with it, and then discuss their results when they're available?

 

[Sovereignty]

Yes, but my point is that when you've got proper large-scale double-blind testing going on for therapeutic drugs administered at various stages of the disease, Recovery for drugs to be administered when the patient is in hospital (i.e. 8 days or more after first becoming symptomatic) or Principle for drugs to be administered earlier on, after the patient becomes symptomatic but while still under the care of their GP with PRINCIPLE.

I just don't see the point of watching YouTube videos of people proposing their favoured interpretation of the bits and pieces of inconclusive research that are all we have avalable right now when there are, at this moment, large-scale trials going on under the auspices of large and reputable reasearch bodies, which should settle these questions far more definitively than someone on YouTube doing an evidence review that can only lead to "looks potentially promising but more research needed".

Fortunately, more research is going on, very rapidly, in the form of clinical trials large enough to offer confidence in the results, so why not leave the researchers to get on with it, and then discuss their results when they're available?

Not sure we are in disagreement or what the topic is. I'll guess.

There are news stories reporting on these inconclusive research papers with more zest than they deserve, and it's not just Trump. Seheult just points out something about the VA study that has been overlooked in reporting I have seen.

Hydroxychloroquine and remdesivir won't be the last drugs that get caught up in controversy. Seheult is educating the public on the pitfalls inherent in drug research. It is a natural extension of his work educating medical professionals.

People often have to pay for his videos. He's giving videos about COVID away for free. He has staff helping to get the videos out. He is not some guy in his mother's basement eating fruit loops!

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Not sure we are in disagreement or what the topic is. I'll guess.

There are news stories reporting on these inconclusive research papers with more zest than they deserve, and it's not just Trump. Seheult just points out something about the VA study that has been overlooked in reporting I have seen.

Hydroxychloroquine and remdesivir won't be the last drugs that get caught up in controversy. Seheult is educating the public on the pitfalls inherent in drug research. It is a natural extension of his work educating medical professionals.

People often have to pay for his videos. He's giving videos about COVID away for free. He has staff helping to get the videos out. He is not some guy in his mother's basement eating fruit loops!

Could you give me some more details of this chap's "work educating medical professionals," please?

He runs a website selling investment advice, with a particular emphasis, it seems to me, on encouraging people to buy precious metals, and has no professional medical qualifications that I can see -- according to his biography on his site,

Chris Martenson, PhD (Duke), MBA (Cornell) is an economic researcher and futurist specializing in energy and resource depletion

so it's unclear to me why either medical professionals or anyone else would turn to him for advice on medical matters or, indeed, any topic other than their investment portfolio.

I don't know how it works in the US, but in the UK doctors, or doctors working for the NHS certainly, follow guidance issued not by laypeople with YouTube channels but by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), whose current guidance on Covid-19 is to be found here.

NICE must use the same sources for their evidence reviews as does he, and have the advantage of being medical experts rather than specialists in energy and resource depletion, and the moment, the most that can be said of all these studies about potential therapies for Covid-19 is that they suggest some particular drugs currently used to treat other conditions may be useful for Covid-19 too, but the available evidence is insufficient to allow anyone to form a firm conclusion.

That's why Oxford University and the Nuffield Foundation are running, at this moment, the large-scale clinical trials to which I referred early -- to gain sufficient evidence for sound medical decisions to be taken, and when those trials have concluded, NICE then will consider their peer-reviewed findings and update their advice as appropriate.

I'm puzzled because I don't see how this chap's YouTube channel is supposed to help in this process -- my GP's decision making is guided by NICE and her professional expertise and experience, and I'm guided by her, which is why I was puzzled by that advice that

You need to watch this video, which debunks the research which showed that hydroxychloroquine doesn't work.

The context, you will recall, is that I said my local GP is participating in clinical trials of hydroxychloroquine, which means that, should I become infected and decide to participate in the trials, I'll either be given hydroxychloroquine or a placebo, and neither of us will, at the time, know which it is.

So I just don't understand why I "need to watch this video," or any other video about possible treatments for Covid-19.

What benefit would I gain from watching it that I wouldn't equally gain from watching any other informative video on a scientific topic (or, indeed, people's videos of their pets at play)?

I just don't see what part of my, or my doctor's, decision-making processes are supposed to be informed by this kind of video, and I'm asking someone to explain it to me -- am I supposed to show my GP the video in the hope of persuading her to prescribe me something, or what?

 

[Fionalein]

British politicians say they're simply following the science, but the scientists think they're being used as an excuse for political failures

Scientists criticise UK government's 'following the science' claim

Ministers accused of abdicating political duty to narrow field of opaque expertise on Covid-19

www.theguardian.com

obviously they are too stupid for science - that's most likely the reason why they ended up in politics in the first place...

 

[Innula Zenovka]

obviously they are too stupid for science - that's most likely the reason why they ended up in politics in the first place...

I don't think it's stupidity at all.

Rather, the scientists are providing them with evidence upon which to take political decisions -- "if you do this, then the likely result is A, while if you do something else, then the likely result is B, and here's the evidence to support these two statements" -- and the politicians then decide, or not, what to do.

The politicians, meanwhile, are using the advice to shift responsibility for the consequences of their decisions onto the scientists, to try to avoid criticism.

In the US, Trump has clearly told his scientific advisors to come up with a strategy for lifting restrictions and restarting the economy as quickly as possible.

This they have done, but it would be wrong to say that his political decision to give priority to restarting the economy rather than preserving lives was based on scientific advice -- rather, then scientists offered him several possible different options, along with an explanation of their practical implications, and he decided which one he wanted to pursue.

Scientists are responsible for the advice they offer, but politicians are responsible for deciding what to do about the advice they receive, even though it sometimes suits them to pretend otherwise.

 

[Kara Spengler]

Faux News never learn.


The "right" like to say "the left can't meme" (incorrect, of course--they just don't like the memes). But the right for sure can't be funny. Not intentionally, anyway.

One example of the right on social media, conservative hashtags. The typical one is about 100 characters long and gets hijacked in a few minutes.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Thread

 

[Kara Spengler]

Does he even think before speaking?

 

[Kara Spengler]

Thread

If that is so we need to change quite a few things. We are in an emergency state now, not one designed to last years.

For example, just our supply chains. Right now half of it (commercial) is used far less than before but half is stretched to the limit. There are also many things out there (like theme parks and movies) that only make sense in current models if you can have a crowd. To say nothing of countless other things where social distancing is not an option.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

If that is so we need to change quite a few things. We are in an emergency state now, not one designed to last years.

For example, just our supply chains. Right now half of it (commercial) is used far less than before but half is stretched to the limit. There are also many things out there (like theme parks and movies) that only make sense in current models if you can have a crowd. To say nothing of countless other things where social distancing is not an option.

Things will change, whether we need them to or not.

I'm wondering what the airline business is going to look like, since a lot of the business travel market (which what makes the money, particularly on international flights) isn't going to come back, since people are adapting to holding meetings online when previously they'd have flown to meet face-to-face, the tourist market isn't going to come back for a long time, either, and already at least the budget carriers over here (RyanAir) have said that they won't fly again if they have to impose social distancing, since their business model can't take it.

They will all be trying to survive in this new and very challenging circumstances, having already lost however many weeks' revenue it is.

Many of them won't survive, and that in turn will have significant local effects, not just because of jobs lost with the airlines and lost revenue for the airports, but also on the local economies of the regions served by those carriers (very significant indeed in the case of some of the smaller short-hop budget airlines flying weird routes).

 

[Kara Spengler]

Things will change, whether we need them to or not.

I'm wondering what the airline business is going to look like, since a lot of the business travel market (which what makes the money, particularly on international flights) isn't going to come back, since people are adapting to holding meetings online when previously they'd have flown to meet face-to-face, the tourist market isn't going to come back for a long time, either, and already at least the budget carriers over here (RyanAir) have said that they won't fly again if they have to impose social distancing, since their business model can't take it.

They will all be trying to survive in this new and very challenging circumstances, having already lost however many weeks' revenue it is.

Many of them won't survive, and that in turn will have significant local effects, not just because of jobs lost with the airlines and lost revenue for the airports, but also on the local economies of the regions served by those carriers (very significant indeed in the case of some of the smaller short-hop budget airlines flying weird routes).

While some conferences switched to online easily others are still fighting it. While it seems like the change would be easy a big part is the random networking in chance encounters.

UBI is a must. Right now a lot of people are flatly unemployed. Others are working in dangerous conditions (so robotics needs to increase there). Even those of us that can work from home do not get off completely, unless you already had a home office you are working in less than ideal conditions, I know some people without even a desk or space to put one (to say nothing of constant home interruptions).

I am really concerned about people who think everything is business as usual. When they realize that is not the case they are going to fall hard.