Like all presidents before him Trump is a hypocrite so nah I doubt he'll agree.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
If you look at some of the graphs, we hit the peak of positives per 100k on April 3rd. And almost every state has vastly increased their testing. We've been holding steady on positives per test since around June 28th.
Test more people, get more positive tests. We are testing 5 times more than in the past. Look at April, look at now. The graphs in the link are interactive.
Here's why this result is significant:
1. We know how to do contact tracing, better.
2. More tests are available.
3. We are testing at more than 5 times the amount but have less positives per test by as much as 3 times fewer positives per tests if you use April 3rd as the "peak baseline."
4. Almost all states have fewer deaths than their peak.
5. None of the mainstream media is fairly representing these facts and only focuses on the positive test results, not the proportion of positives per 100k.
Full disclosure: I have a severe and antagonistic bias against the MSM. I loathe what they do, with a passion.
This is the only data we have to go on, though. And this is the data people are using to justify wearing masks in public. That and healthcare settings.
No, it has been recommended to wear masks around your family members if you're positive. It's also being recommended to wear a mask in public.
You've got it - in order for them to be true RCTs, they have to actually have controls such as compliance to mask wearing, proper fitting, continuous use, proper sanitization protocols, etc. When those things are done in a quality RCT, you see no mask benefit outside of continuous responsible use with N95s but that's only for a healthcare worker setting.
As for the HCQ stuff:
We do have a result for a randomized clinical trial (which is type randomized control trial)
It looks like they did not...use covariate adaptive randomization for their smaller sample size? I cannot tell. But it looks like their age and sex numbers were similar enough to make the result not confounded.
This trial is currently underway and they are very strict with their methodology. I do not find any preliminary findings, yet (often, with these situations, they will publish their prelim data as it develops to save lives if possible):
But the biggest study we have, which is a retrospective study (not as good as an RCT but if the data is good, you can simulate an RCT such as dosing, control groups, dosing periods, patient variables, etc.)
This result is fairly strong. Other doctors have very large sets of what would be called anecdotal evidence of their dosing protocols. They are using HCQ+Azithromycin+Zinc.
That really really sucks for him. Being serious. He needs to use a pseudonym if his particular therapy work is sensitive for his patients. He could have a trusted third party "verify" that he is a legit licensed Psychiatrist.
__________________
Last edited by dadudemon on Jul 16th, 2020 at 09:16 PM
President Trump and his advisers are a crackerjack bunch, so they’ve quickly figured out that it’s bad politics to be seen overtly undermining the nation’s top infectious-disease expert amid a pandemic that’s surging in part due to Trump’s own disastrous incompetence.
June 28th? It was 6.9 percent and, since then, has increased to 8.5 percent.
Not wrong but we are looking at positives per test and that has heightened, not just raw positives.
I'm not sure what is compelling the growth in increase positives per test. However, it cannot solely be attributed to improved contact tracing. Premature opening, particularly in Southern states, is very likely a primary contributor.
This probably isn't good, no doubt, but a majority of the COVID-19 coverage is fucking boring to me so I've only loosely followed it via non-mainstream sources. I'm not sure if what you're saying is true or false since I just don't consume that much CNN, Fox News, and more.
Given the evidence, this prescription is okay.
I haven't seen this because I imagine if you're positive, you'd go to a hospital.
Yes, and that's fine. A lot of spaces in public are densely crowded and people benefit from using masks.
This is exactly what one would expect. N95's are solid, if used assiduously. In a high-contamination space like a hospital, small errors can lead to infection.
However? This doesn't tell us anything about public usage.
Yeah, that's yet to be peer reviewed. Also, if the site says not to use a preprint to
This is a thing to take with not-to-be-understated seriousness. I don't think there's any RCT that is formally published and integrated into clinical guidelines as of yet. The article claims they possess "partial confirmation" but also lists a torrent of severe downsides from HCQ usage. For me, I await something more conclusive.
So, when this is finished, we'll possess better information.
Selfsame to the first one, I'm not sure how much of this I'm supposed to take seriously considering it's still just in medxriv limbo. It seems to concur with the other in that it has the potential to be useful but could be challenging to apply it appropriately.
All the more reason to continue examining azithromycin and HCQ, like they're doing:
It's not the gold standard I'd reasonably want for a medication. When it comes to masks, there isn't really some massive downside in the same way some of these studies acknowledge there could be when it comes to HCQ. So, I think we can make prescriptions from results with less power.
It's pretty straightforward to find him online. However, the point was essentially that there is a difference between using search engines to find out who he is and having your full name published in the New York Times.
It's holding steady around 9%, now. They hit their "second wave" positives peak on July 11th at 10%. We also hit a record number of tests to day, as well.
June 28th? It was 6.9 percent and, since then, has increased to 8.5 percent.[/B][/QUOTE]
I disagree based on the data which shows it holding quite steady since June 28th.
Even your graph shows a downward trend which is not a point I'm making.
Contrast these numbers with the peak figures I mentioned, earlier, of 24% positive.
And at the time I looked at the data, the US has been almost completely open for weeks and it looked like we settled in around 5-7% positivity rate despite the skyrocketing testing results. Hence my original post you quotted from June 28th.
No, the figure I'm referring to really did hit 24% positivity rate on April 3rd. Positives per 100k hit the peak on April 3rd as seen here:
(please log in to view the image)
We greatly decreased that number by expanding testing to people who were not presenting ill. That means we got more infected but more of those were asymptomatic. The media ran with the numbers of tons of new infected but failed to demonstrate that the testing was 7 times higher than before and positivity rates were much lower than peak in April. This was my issue and why I brought it up. It's still correct. 1-2% does not change my point about the dishonest representation in the media.
Unfortunately, premature opening cannot be it, either. Most states reopened at the end of April and early May. No spike ever came, contrary to what the MSM was telling us. We hit a 'sag' in June were positives per test dropped as low as 4% for many days despite nearly rabid testing compared to the past. We also saw a marked drop in death rates, all in the face of the narrative the MSM was presenting.
It's how we ended up with graphs like this:
(please log in to view the image)
(please log in to view the image)
NYT collected info on which states reopened or are now reversing:
And you can see on the graphs they use how reopening had little to nothing to do with their subsequent spikes: it took many weeks in some states before these recent spikes started happening.
To skip all of this: we don't disagree. The data is the data and it cannot be argued unless you want to talk about the honesty/truth in the actual data collected. The only thing we've done is just simply point to the data on charts and correctly interpreted the content. The thing I've done differently than others, including MSM outlets, is actually created a trendline to determine what the linear relationship was.
None of the headlines read, "New positive cases are decreasing proportionally to positive cases in April but a second wave appears to be there." That would be telling the truth. That would be nuanced and boring. Instead, they inundated us with headline after headline of record breaking daily new positives in states where daily deaths were still dropping but testing had increased by more than 10 times in some states.
I agree that people can voluntarily wear them but the evidence is not there to mandate mask wearing unless they want to mandate extremely strict use of N95 masks, all day long, in public with fines for touching your face for any reason.
Anywhere from a significant minority to an extreme majority of positive cases are asymptomatic (depends on which study you feel is most correct). Hospitalization rate for positive cases is .1%.
I agree if and only if they are wearing properly fitted N95 masks and are fined for touching their faces/adjusting their masks.
I also agree with everything you said, here.
Good or bad, healthcare professionals are still using these drugs to save lives.
Yes. Looks like the best put together study, to date. You can sometimes get insider data as they are conducting the study (but I could not find it).
All of it should be taken seriously and quickly used to help other patients. Remember, we were told millions of people would die from this. We have heart measurement tools to check for cardiotoxicity before it gets out of hand and drop them off the drug. Which they did in the studies.
It's better than nothing and still dying, however.
The recommendation has always been to combine all 3 and that's the research I'm not seeing.
Johns Hopkins is performing a seven day trailing average for positives per test. Reuters does not have this on tap. The Reuters data is not a good means of declaring that the peak surpassed. It would be like declaring July 4th as the second wave peak (https://i.imgur.com/Z17RJp0.png)
I'm not pushing back against this. My contention is that we can say rate of positivity has steadily held since the 28th and that the second wave positivity rate has peaked. This is based on the seven day trailing average given by Johns Hopkins.
I'm not sure what mainstream media representation appeared to be at large. I have not seen much that's overwhelmingly atrocious from the New York Times, as one example. I'm not sure what you're pointing to, honestly.
The death spikes were fairly localized but I'm not sure the second wave can be said to be over.
Spiking in positive test results trail early reopening. However, spikes in positive test rate and new deaths do not, as far as I recall.
The dispute concerns whether or not we should use a seven day trailing average.
I have no clue. As I alluded to before, I don't consistently follow much that could constitute as MSM. The one thing I do, however, is the New York Times and they're okay.
This is not my prescription. I think everyone should be wearing masks. However, I do not believe it should be mandatory. A flawless RCT demonstrating the efficacy of mask-wearing would likewise not be satisfactory for me to prescribe this. I think it is solidly justified to castigate individuals for not wearing masks. The moral thing to do is to wear one.
I had not considered that they recommended this, if asymptomatic. There's really not point to wearing a mask if you're asymptomatic and not inside of a hospital and just at home. Everyone is almost definitely infected.
^ That does not say to wear it in your household, however. I'm unsure who is advising that.
I'm going to push back against this because I disagree. The evidence in the SSC article implies there is solid reasoning to believe cloth masks are effective within the settings described. A hospital is an astronomically higher risk area than even public transit. I don't think those meta-analyses can be generalized to public conduct to claim that only this level of attentiveness will have a mitigating effect.
What?
We don't know this yet, despite the fact that they're using them.
I'm fairly certain the Imperial College model claimed the upper end was millions if, quite literally, no measure and/or no action was taken. Neil Ferguson gets unreasonably shit on, including accounting for predictions in the past: https://statmodeling.stat.columbia....comment-1331901
I attribute this to people intentionally misrepresenting the research.
Not if it causes genuine harm to people, which is why I would recommend waiting for the actual quality RCT instead of retrospective studies or flawed RCTs.
__________________
Nothing ever ends.
Last edited by Gehenna on Jul 17th, 2020 at 01:51 AM
And this isn't towards you, but I have to laugh at that other guy putting me on ignore over this. I'd really hate to see how he handles real life arguments if he gets so easily bent out of shape. From reading his other posts, he seems like one of those angry keyboard warriors anyway that uses the anonymity to say all of sorts of hoopla because he knows if he were to shoot his mouth off like that to the wrong person in real life, there can be actual consequences.
Last edited by KCJ506 on Jul 17th, 2020 at 06:08 AM
Yea..how dare those morons encourage thousands of people to gather in large crowds. it's like they want people to die.
__________________ posted by Badabing
I don't know why some of you are going on about being right and winning. Rob and Impediment were in on this gag because I PMed them. Silent and Rao PMed me and figured I changed the post. I highly doubt anybody thought Quan made the post, but simply played along just for the lulz.
KMC Community Forums
Jul 16th, 2020 09:02 PM
Attachment: 
top notch!
