Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Environmental Discussion' started by tochatihu, Jan 26, 2020.
Ok great I have cats
moto g power ?
Not sure if CDC reports like these are covered by the media on your side of the pond. Over here mask wearing is only mandated indoors and there is anticipation of a release from restrictions in the coming months.
This Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report from last week was sent around our medical staff.
It adds more evidence that mask mandates reduce infection rates and deaths; and that the resumption of in-person dining leads to an increase in the same.
No new concepts here, but just more data.
Association of State-Issued Mask Mandates and Allowing On-Premises Restaurant Dining with County-Level COVID-19 Case and Death Growth Rates — United States, March 1–December 31, 2020 | MMWR
Can you just get it directly from the litter box?
I'll let someone else try that.
Give it a shot and report the findings.
60 minutes is touting fluvoxamine as a possible treatment.
Thanks for the heads up. Just we need be wary of a 'trial' drug versus one that has completed a double-blind, study of a significant population. We don't want to tout the next 'hydroxychloroquine'.
On the 60 minutes show the trial was a professional double blind study that was published in a medical journal. It was used in a real life setting and proved very effective. Another Medical group is now performing a larger double blind study and initial results are even more promising. In my opinion the 60 minutes story was not promoting the drug but sharing the positive results of the study
Fluvoxamine for Early Treatment of Covid-19 (Stop Covid 2) - Full Text View - ClinicalTrials.gov
Fluvoxamine: Finding a possible early treatment for COVID-19 in a 40-year-old antidepressant - 60 Minutes - CBS News
in my case, it would prove to be a twofer. cure my covid, and my ocd
The program did mention it is a treatment for OCD as bisco mentioned and if I recall correctly it cost $0.25 a tablet.
Talking about treatments for COVID-19, what happened to the megadose vitamin D story lately? Or was it vitamin C? I lost interest in it a long time ago. I don't know if there have been definitive scientific studies on that???
Vitamin D, I suspect - By coincidence there was a recent Editorial on this in one of our leading medical journals - essentially the scientific jury is still out.
Vitamin D and covid-19 | The BMJ
However, it has led to some controversy as other physicians are saying that there are sufficient ‘other benefits’ to making sure someone is not D-deficient that a ‘balance of probabilities’ approach is better in a pandemic; and that dietary supplements should be recommended (with many physicians confessing that they already taking them! )
It is hard to keep up with so many claimed ‘breakthroughs’ announced. There was a recent one from Israel, for example, called EXO-CD24, interesting because it is a nasal spray. Because we have a nationalised healthcare system in the U.K., we have a unit set up to monitor these. The unit works in partnership with several independent regulatory bodies.
The President of one of our Physician’s Associations wrote this is his last weekly brief:
(I hadn’t realised till then how many new treatments were being evaluated)
As always, my postbag has been bulging with enquiries about why I am not advocating for particular treatments. Keeping on top of all the treatments being proposed for COVID-19 is no easy task and ensuring they are reviewed objectively and fairly is harder still. Thankfully the NHS has a specific team doing this called the RAPID-C19 initiative. RAPID stands for ‘research to access pathway for investigational drugs’ and is a collaborative between different parts of the NHS including NICE, the MHRA and NIHR as well as the NHS bodies in the devolved nations.
At the moment they have a staggering 742 treatments under consideration/observation, from those looking at community prevention, through management of symptoms, hospitalisation, and rehabilitation after infection. It seems unlikely that we will have any drugs that have such a dramatic effect on mortality as steroids and tocilizumab but I await the news around inhaled budesonide and aspirin with interest.”
Thanks for the ref. I will try reading it sometime in between 100+ articles I read daily.
John already provided a couple links. For more, here is the ScienceNews version published well before the 60 Minutes show: Feb 1 on-line, in the Feb 27 hardcopy magazine:
SciNews: The antidepressant fluvoxamine could keep mild COVID-19 from worsening
That also points back to JAMA, Nov 12:
JAMA Network: Fluvoxamine vs Placebo and Clinical Deterioration in Outpatients With Symptomatic COVID-19A Randomized Clinical Trial
Question Does fluvoxamine, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor and σ-1 receptor agonist, prevent clinical deterioration in outpatients with acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)?
Findings In this randomized trial that included 152 adult outpatients with confirmed COVID-19 and symptom onset within 7 days, clinical deterioration occurred in 0 patients treated with fluvoxamine vs 6 (8.3%) patients treated with placebo over 15 days, a difference that was statistically significant.
Meaning In this preliminary study, adult outpatients with symptomatic COVID-19 treated with fluvoxamine, compared with placebo, had a lower likelihood of clinical deterioration over 15 days; however, determination of clinical efficacy would require larger randomized trials with more definitive outcome measures."
there are currently only two fda approved treatments, and a couple others in trials.
I look forward to a larger population study. When we see the number of assertive case is not zero, my confidence level increases. Seeing a zero number always makes me wonder. Empirical science is that way.
Zero numbers do tend to flag too-small sample sizes.
The current trial began Dec 22, and is aiming for 880 - 1100 participants, but final data collection isn't expected until July, publication about September.
They are still recruiting patients, so maybe some other organizations could be encouraged to join in to speed up the program by a few months.
Reminds me of Famotidine. A Chinese doctor noticed that patients who had been taking a cheap heartburn medicine seemed to be less likely to develop strong Covid symptoms and deaths than those who were taking expensive heartburn medicine. He published a comparison observational study. The cheap heartburn medicine contained Famotidine, similar to Pepcid-AC. They came up with a reasonable explanation on how Famotidine could affect Covid. A New York doctor started prescribing it to his out-patients and seemed to notice a similar improvement in their health. It is one of the drugs given to Trump when he had Covid.
Then they did a large, controlled study. Result? Nothing. There was no difference in results between those who took the drug and those who didn't.
That's the problem with small studies. People think you should always pay attention when the results are not 50%. But random doesn't mean 50/50. If you flip a coin 10 times, odds are that it isn't going to be heads exactly 5 times. Over a long time it will trend toward 50%, but it can be way off with a small number of flips. So any small group of people is going to show a skew of results. If you have 10 people with Covid, and 7 of them get better, maybe all 7 ate peanuts, or the 3 who got sicker ate olives. That doesn't mean anything. You need a large controlled study before you can make any conclusions.
Odd - California new cases are down to levels not seen since 1st few months of virus records were being kept.
Yet deaths are not following that same steep curve at all.
Looks like New York, Pennsylvania, and other Northeast states are seeing an uptick in cases.