OtherGround Forums OG doc. AMA on COVID-19

Edited: 6/5/20 1:08 AM
2/25/09
Posts: 8017
Akkadian88 -
Beninger -

And not a single fuck was given any longer 

I guess that's why this got unstickied. Racism is apparently more of a threat. Who knew?

Really? 100,000 deaths from from covid vs 9 unarmed black slayings all year? Racism is the threat.?
 

thats a narrative for you. Jist like covid the reaction is much larger than the actual perceived danger. 

6/5/20 5:39 AM
1/12/07
Posts: 20373

 

Hey doc ,. your from NYC. What's this about then?

6/5/20 10:46 AM
10/23/05
Posts: 3807
NoNeed4aScreenName - 

Thoughts?

 


Yup, that was shameful.

To respond to Job Security, peer-review isn't supposed to uncover fraud, but the Lancet editors failed on their job there. The authors just dug their own grave.

Many reasons why this happened. I know many claim a political scheme here but there are more likely reasons, the usuals being money (ties to Gilead) or career advancement (lancet is a top 10 journal and many academics know that the due process for acceptance is not enforced).

Honestly, almost all studies that came out reek heavily of shit. i'm with Job here: RCTs are coming out and they will give us the answers we want.

The one from NEJM regarding prophylaxis is a good start.

6/5/20 10:58 AM
2/4/09
Posts: 12161
mataleo1 -
NoNeed4aScreenName - 

Thoughts?

 


Yup, that was shameful.

To respond to Job Security, peer-review isn't supposed to uncover fraud, but the Lancet editors failed on their job there. The authors just dug their own grave.

Many reasons why this happened. I know many claim a political scheme here but there are more likely reasons, the usuals being money (ties to Gilead) or career advancement (lancet is a top 10 journal and many academics know that the due process for acceptance is not enforced).

Honestly, almost all studies that came out reek heavily of shit. i'm with Job here: RCTs are coming out and they will give us the answers we want.

The one from NEJM regarding prophylaxis is a good start.

Its unfortunate that funding can have a direct impact of the outcome of a study. 

 

I'm looking forward to when finding and such isnt such a centralized issue. 

 

Maybe one day people can support studies they want an answer to through donations and can accept the outcomes of the study. 

 

I post in many political threads but I agree that politics is fucking up the world 

6/5/20 11:00 AM
10/23/05
Posts: 3808
SpunQ - 

 

Hey doc ,. your from NYC. What's this about then?


Here are the daily deaths in NYC for 2 months now:

590 on April 7th
438 on April 15th
308 April 21st
202 May 1st
99 May 9th
74 May 16th
38 May 27th
11 June 1st

https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page

That this is now 0 isn't particularly surprising: time of death usually happens 2-3 weeks after infection.

If cases increase in 1-2 weeks, then we'll know why. If they don't, it'll tell us that transmission from open spaces (as we've suspected) isn't a major concern.

6/5/20 11:08 AM
2/4/09
Posts: 12162
mataleo1 -
SpunQ - 

 

Hey doc ,. your from NYC. What's this about then?


Here are the daily deaths in NYC for 2 months now:

590 on April 7th
438 on April 15th
308 April 21st
202 May 1st
99 May 9th
74 May 16th
38 May 27th
11 June 1st

https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page

That this is now 0 isn't particularly surprising: time of death usually happens 2-3 weeks after infection.

If cases increase in 1-2 weeks, then we'll know why. If they don't, it'll tell us that transmission from open spaces (as we've suspected) isn't a major concern.

Litmus test.

 

If this doesnt create new outbreaks then even half assing a mask can protect most. Maybe we can consider opening up 

6/5/20 11:12 AM
10/23/05
Posts: 3809
NoNeed4aScreenName - 
mataleo1 -
NoNeed4aScreenName - 

Thoughts?

 


Yup, that was shameful.

To respond to Job Security, peer-review isn't supposed to uncover fraud, but the Lancet editors failed on their job there. The authors just dug their own grave.

Many reasons why this happened. I know many claim a political scheme here but there are more likely reasons, the usuals being money (ties to Gilead) or career advancement (lancet is a top 10 journal and many academics know that the due process for acceptance is not enforced).

Honestly, almost all studies that came out reek heavily of shit. i'm with Job here: RCTs are coming out and they will give us the answers we want.

The one from NEJM regarding prophylaxis is a good start.

Its unfortunate that funding can have a direct impact of the outcome of a study. 

 

I'm looking forward to when finding and such isnt such a centralized issue. 

 

Maybe one day people can support studies they want an answer to through donations and can accept the outcomes of the study. 

 

I post in many political threads but I agree that politics is fucking up the world 


There's more to this.

I myself am funded. I've done RCTs and none of my studies were sponsored by industry. I don't even give paid talks anymore to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest.

Funding is dependent on publications. Publications have a positive reporting bias (meaning you're more likely to be published if you show a positive result).

However, for RCTs, you must register it BEFOREHAND (before starting it) and it gets often audited during the study. If a RCT never gets published, then you may suspect that the authors decided to shelve it because they "didn't like" the results.

This whole process isn't as stringent for observational studies and with the easy access to major journals during COVID (with massive rewards), fraud has ramped up. That Lancet study and the Raoult crap were prime examples.

6/5/20 11:13 AM
10/23/05
Posts: 3810
NoNeed4aScreenName - 
mataleo1 -
SpunQ - 

 

Hey doc ,. your from NYC. What's this about then?


Here are the daily deaths in NYC for 2 months now:

590 on April 7th
438 on April 15th
308 April 21st
202 May 1st
99 May 9th
74 May 16th
38 May 27th
11 June 1st

https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page

That this is now 0 isn't particularly surprising: time of death usually happens 2-3 weeks after infection.

If cases increase in 1-2 weeks, then we'll know why. If they don't, it'll tell us that transmission from open spaces (as we've suspected) isn't a major concern.

Litmus test.

 

If this doesnt create new outbreaks then even half assing a mask can protect most. Maybe we can consider opening up 


Absolutely. It's sad that we need riots to provide us with data, but they're informative.

6/5/20 11:18 AM
2/4/09
Posts: 12163
mataleo1 -
NoNeed4aScreenName - 
mataleo1 -
NoNeed4aScreenName - 

Thoughts?

 


Yup, that was shameful.

To respond to Job Security, peer-review isn't supposed to uncover fraud, but the Lancet editors failed on their job there. The authors just dug their own grave.

Many reasons why this happened. I know many claim a political scheme here but there are more likely reasons, the usuals being money (ties to Gilead) or career advancement (lancet is a top 10 journal and many academics know that the due process for acceptance is not enforced).

Honestly, almost all studies that came out reek heavily of shit. i'm with Job here: RCTs are coming out and they will give us the answers we want.

The one from NEJM regarding prophylaxis is a good start.

Its unfortunate that funding can have a direct impact of the outcome of a study. 

 

I'm looking forward to when finding and such isnt such a centralized issue. 

 

Maybe one day people can support studies they want an answer to through donations and can accept the outcomes of the study. 

 

I post in many political threads but I agree that politics is fucking up the world 


There's more to this.

I myself am funded. I've done RCTs and none of my studies were sponsored by industry. I don't even give paid talks anymore to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest.

Funding is dependent on publications. Publications have a positive reporting bias (meaning you're more likely to be published if you show a positive result).

However, for RCTs, you must register it BEFOREHAND (before starting it) and it gets often audited during the study. If a RCT never gets published, then you may suspect that the authors decided to shelve it because they "didn't like" the results.

This whole process isn't as stringent for observational studies and with the easy access to major journals during COVID (with massive rewards), fraud has ramped up. That Lancet study and the Raoult crap were prime examples.

While not quite the same but during my masters there were labs that would just include other labs researchers and vice versa simply to increase their publications numbers to get more funding.

6/5/20 11:20 AM
8/23/11
Posts: 9721
mataleo1 -
SpunQ - 

 

Hey doc ,. your from NYC. What's this about then?


Here are the daily deaths in NYC for 2 months now:

590 on April 7th
438 on April 15th
308 April 21st
202 May 1st
99 May 9th
74 May 16th
38 May 27th
11 June 1st

https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page

That this is now 0 isn't particularly surprising: time of death usually happens 2-3 weeks after infection.

If cases increase in 1-2 weeks, then we'll know why. If they don't, it'll tell us that transmission from open spaces (as we've suspected) isn't a major concern.

Open spaces 

and or 

the virus is mutating to a less dangerous weaker strain 

the heat and humidity is killing it / weakening it 

if you had to pick one of the 3. What’s your prediction? 
 

or... it was overblown to begin with? And the numbers were skewed 

6/5/20 11:21 AM
10/23/05
Posts: 3811
NoNeed4aScreenName - 
mataleo1 -
NoNeed4aScreenName - 
mataleo1 -
NoNeed4aScreenName - 

Thoughts?

 


Yup, that was shameful.

To respond to Job Security, peer-review isn't supposed to uncover fraud, but the Lancet editors failed on their job there. The authors just dug their own grave.

Many reasons why this happened. I know many claim a political scheme here but there are more likely reasons, the usuals being money (ties to Gilead) or career advancement (lancet is a top 10 journal and many academics know that the due process for acceptance is not enforced).

Honestly, almost all studies that came out reek heavily of shit. i'm with Job here: RCTs are coming out and they will give us the answers we want.

The one from NEJM regarding prophylaxis is a good start.

Its unfortunate that funding can have a direct impact of the outcome of a study. 

 

I'm looking forward to when finding and such isnt such a centralized issue. 

 

Maybe one day people can support studies they want an answer to through donations and can accept the outcomes of the study. 

 

I post in many political threads but I agree that politics is fucking up the world 


There's more to this.

I myself am funded. I've done RCTs and none of my studies were sponsored by industry. I don't even give paid talks anymore to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest.

Funding is dependent on publications. Publications have a positive reporting bias (meaning you're more likely to be published if you show a positive result).

However, for RCTs, you must register it BEFOREHAND (before starting it) and it gets often audited during the study. If a RCT never gets published, then you may suspect that the authors decided to shelve it because they "didn't like" the results.

This whole process isn't as stringent for observational studies and with the easy access to major journals during COVID (with massive rewards), fraud has ramped up. That Lancet study and the Raoult crap were prime examples.

While not quite the same but during my masters there were labs that would just include other labs researchers and vice versa simply to increase their publications numbers to get more funding.


That still occurs.

I'm partnering with a Chinese researcher on one study and he wants me to include 4 of his bosses on the paper (who haven't done anything and who might not even know about our research lol)

6/5/20 11:27 AM
10/23/05
Posts: 3812
androb - 
mataleo1 -
SpunQ - 

 

Hey doc ,. your from NYC. What's this about then?


Here are the daily deaths in NYC for 2 months now:

590 on April 7th
438 on April 15th
308 April 21st
202 May 1st
99 May 9th
74 May 16th
38 May 27th
11 June 1st

https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page

That this is now 0 isn't particularly surprising: time of death usually happens 2-3 weeks after infection.

If cases increase in 1-2 weeks, then we'll know why. If they don't, it'll tell us that transmission from open spaces (as we've suspected) isn't a major concern.

Open spaces 

and or 

the virus is mutating to a less dangerous weaker strain 

the heat and humidity is killing it / weakening it 

if you had to pick one of the 3. What’s your prediction? 
 

or... it was overblown to begin with? And the numbers were skewed 


Tuff question.

Open spaces do not explain why numbers are decreasing. They may explain why they're not increasing. Less people in subways and social distancing may have helped.

I can only speak of Montreal and NYC regarding skewed numbers. And if they are, the numbers here are underreported and underestimated. Hospitals and ICUs in NYC and Montreal are becoming empty again but it was hell just 4 weeks ago.

Most respiratory viruses tend to disappear during hotter months. So it's possibly heat/humidity but then I'm not sure why cases are exploding in Brazil and South America (where it's still hot even if getting cooler).

No evidence of mutations.

6/5/20 11:33 AM
10/23/05
Posts: 3813

In the news, a RCT was just stopped in the UK for lack of effect of HCQ in hospitalized patients. They had already recruited 4500 patients.

Looking forward in reading more details.

6/5/20 12:18 PM
1/1/01
Posts: 65959
Did we really have 0 COVID deaths yesterday? We'd been hovering around 40-50/day for a while, it would be something if it suddenly plummeted to 0, even if it's just an outlier.
6/5/20 12:24 PM
10/23/05
Posts: 3814
Tomato Can - Did we really have 0 COVID deaths yesterday? We'd been hovering around 40-50/day for a while, it would be something if it suddenly plummeted to 0, even if it's just an outlier.

There's always some reporting delay but there's no doubt it's way down.

On here, it shows the latest we have: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data-deaths.page

6/5/20 12:41 PM
1/12/07
Posts: 20388
mataleo1 -
SpunQ - 

 

Hey doc ,. your from NYC. What's this about then?


Here are the daily deaths in NYC for 2 months now:

590 on April 7th
438 on April 15th
308 April 21st
202 May 1st
99 May 9th
74 May 16th
38 May 27th
11 June 1st

https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page

That this is now 0 isn't particularly surprising: time of death usually happens 2-3 weeks after infection.

If cases increase in 1-2 weeks, then we'll know why. If they don't, it'll tell us that transmission from open spaces (as we've suspected) isn't a major concern.

Perfect, cheers .

6/5/20 12:41 PM
1/1/01
Posts: 65960
Well that's fantastic. Maybe we'll actually get to start reopening next week and I'll get to go to a BJJ class sometime before the end of the year.
6/5/20 12:50 PM
6/22/17
Posts: 157

Way too much information to know if this has been asked, but what are the odds most of us have been exposed months ago and are currently immune? 

 

I remember in Nebraska at least that schools were clearing out due to the flu around oct/november.... could this have been COVID before we knew it was a thing?

6/5/20 12:53 PM
1/1/01
Posts: 65961
VictoryJay - 

Way too much information to know if this has been asked, but what are the odds most of us have been exposed months ago and are currently immune? 

 

I remember in Nebraska at least that schools were clearing out due to the flu around oct/november.... could this have been COVID before we knew it was a thing?


Pretty sure that is way too early for it to have been COVID. The pneumonia cluster that was the first indication of a new virus was reported in Wuhan around New Year's.
6/5/20 1:12 PM
10/23/05
Posts: 3815
VictoryJay - 

Way too much information to know if this has been asked, but what are the odds most of us have been exposed months ago and are currently immune? 

 

I remember in Nebraska at least that schools were clearing out due to the flu around oct/november.... could this have been COVID before we knew it was a thing?


We don't have antibody data for most States/Countries, but chances are not very high you've been exposed if we look at data from Sweden and California. Even in cities that were hit hard (NYC, Madrid, London), prevalence of COVID antibodies is less than 20%. So one may assume that it was a lot less back in November.

6/5/20 1:15 PM
10/23/05
Posts: 3816
Tomato Can - Well that's fantastic. Maybe we'll actually get to start reopening next week and I'll get to go to a BJJ class sometime before the end of the year.

If there's one good thing about these riots is that it'll give us extra arguments for opening up. Hopefully, politicians will listen.

6/5/20 4:51 PM
12/24/16
Posts: 1108
Tomato Can - Did we really have 0 COVID deaths yesterday? We'd been hovering around 40-50/day for a while, it would be something if it suddenly plummeted to 0, even if it's just an outlier.

Must have run out of nursing home patients to knock off
6/5/20 5:28 PM
1/1/01
Posts: 3796
mataleo1 -
Tomato Can - Well that's fantastic. Maybe we'll actually get to start reopening next week and I'll get to go to a BJJ class sometime before the end of the year.

If there's one good thing about these riots is that it'll give us extra arguments for opening up. Hopefully, politicians will listen.

seems to me the fact that they haven't been enforcing any of the social distancing rules withw indicate that they don't believe their own b*******.  

 

you can't say that you have to social distance wear a mask and shelter in place to save lives and then have thousands of people in every city all over the country not doing any of that literally back to back.  

 

That means you don't believe your own b*******

Edited: 6/5/20 6:16 PM
9/8/02
Posts: 26960
Au Jus - 
mataleo1 -
Tomato Can - Well that's fantastic. Maybe we'll actually get to start reopening next week and I'll get to go to a BJJ sometime before the end of the year.

If there's one good thing about these riots is that it'll give us extra arguments for opening up. Hopefully, politicians will listen.
 

seems to me the fact that they haven't been enforcing any of the social distancing rules withw indicate that they don't believe their own b*******.  

 

you can't say that you have to social distance wear a mask and shelter in place to save lives and then have thousands of people in every city all over the country not doing any of that literally back to back.  

 

That means you don't believe your own b*******

 

Moreoever, in a place like Los Angeles, when the protests end, Garcetti better not go on TV and say,

 

"ok, just to remind everyone we are still entering Phase 2, gyms and barbers are still closed, masks must be worn at all time, no sitting in the sand, and no using the play equipment at local parks. Oh, and retail must be kept at 25% capacity at all time..."

6/6/20 3:01 AM
7/28/08
Posts: 1827
mataleo1 -
SpunQ - 

 

Hey doc ,. your from NYC. What's this about then?


Here are the daily deaths in NYC for 2 months now:

590 on April 7th
438 on April 15th
308 April 21st
202 May 1st
99 May 9th
74 May 16th
38 May 27th
11 June 1st

https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page

That this is now 0 isn't particularly surprising: time of death usually happens 2-3 weeks after infection.

If cases increase in 1-2 weeks, then we'll know why. If they don't, it'll tell us that transmission from open spaces (as we've suspected) isn't a major concern.

Where will wave 2 of the outbreak come from if the virus has gone?