View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
cal1piggy Star Player
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 Posts: 2584
|
Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2020 6:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
lar9149 wrote: | cal1piggy wrote: | initial results from telluride co antibody testing: Of the approximately 6,000 county residents that were tested during the first round, around 1,600 have received their results, 98 percent of which have come back negative.
IF 2% infected rate for the ski town telluride co is representative for colorado, there is a huge amount of undetected cases. population of colorado is 5.7 million whereas there are 5429 confirmed cases (0.095%). so the ratio of [b]confirmed cases to projected cases through antibody test is about 1:21. Of course the question is IF the tiny ski town of Telluride is representative of the state of Colorado? [/b]
IMO and if the antibody test in telluride is truly representative, then the virus may not be any more deadly or require any more hospital resources or cause pneumonia at a higher rate than the flu. but the problem is that it is incredibly contagious and it kills and requires hospital resources COMPRESSED into a very short time period that would overwhelm hospitals
https://www.telluridenews.com/news/article_c8c45a10-7920-11ea-bffb-0b7144cf4ec4.html
The second round of countywide COVID-19 antibody blood tests has been postponed indefinitely, officials announced Tuesday. The free, voluntary tests that c19 — a subsidiary of parent company United Biomedical Inc. (UBI) — provided to the county in an effort to help manage the pandemic locally aren’t being processed as fast as officials initially planned. Headquartered in New York, UBI’s staff has been cut by 40 percent due to state restrictions. There’s also a lack of supplies, including personal protective equipment.
“This is frustrating and disappointing, but we remain confident in our public health approach and are determined to get through this,” county public information officer Susan Lilly said.
When the partnership between the county and UBI was announced in mid-March, officials praised the test’s quick turnaround time for receiving results, which was supposed to be 48 to 72 hours. But the current backup has caused significant delays. Of the approximately 6,000 county residents that were tested during the first round, around 1,600 have received their results, 98 percent of which have come back negative. Officials also announced Tuesday the tenth positive case — a 41-year-old female who lives in the county. |
Cal1 I was actually thinking about this study last night..now in my opinion the study does emphasize the number of there are a greater number of virus cases we don't know about, but I am not sure of the accuracy of 21:1.
Reason being is something called Bayes theorem (link below) where the "real world" accuracy of a tests is dependent on it incidence of the disease and the accuracy of the tests in a lab (sensitivity and specificity). Now unfortunately there isn't much published information on the a "lab accuracy" of these tests since the FDA fast tracked them. But I heard some are good, some are okay. Lets take a hypothetical example
Assume the antibody tests accuracy is 1% (probably not that good)
Lets say for example the 1,600 above. Assume 2% of them have the virus.
number of people with virus = 1,600 X 2% = 32
without virus = 1568
people with virus testing positive = 32 X 99% = 31.68 about 32
people without virus testing positive = 1568 X 1% = 15.68 about 15
actual accuracy of tests = 32/(32+15) = 68%
21:1 take 21 X 0.68
this wouldn't be so bad but the actual ratio would be about 15:1
Now if the tests isn't as "lab accurate" as 1%, the ratio could be something like 10:1
Still emphasizing a large ratio but it wouldn't be as much as 21:1
The other issues is lets say if you want to do with the governor of New York wants and people who tests positive for the antibody are immune (assuming that is true) and should go back to work. Well..if only 68% of the results are right, that means some people will test positive and think they are immune when they are not.
http://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/otlt/MPH-Modules/BS/BS704_Probability/BS704_Probability6.html |
yes we need more numbers.
lets say if it is 1-2%, what do you think of my opinion that it is actually several times that due to the test really is a snapshot of the situation of ~2 weeks ago.
i believe it takes ~2 weeks for antibody to turn positive? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kwase Star Player
Joined: 21 Mar 2008 Posts: 3069
|
Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2020 7:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
I heard that only .6% of Americans have been tested. Is that true? If so, we have no clue how many people are infected. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
TooMuchMajicBuss Franchise Player
Joined: 17 Sep 2008 Posts: 21064 Location: In a white room, with black curtains near the station
|
Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2020 7:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Cal1 I agree the 2 week lag time for antibodies to appear has to be a factor in extrapolating the data. Beyond that, there are lots of variables, but the theory is sound. We definitely need more data, and a much higher confidence level on projections than we have now. And of course a high multiplier would be nice.
New cases are trending flat and below peak for several days now. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
TooMuchMajicBuss Franchise Player
Joined: 17 Sep 2008 Posts: 21064 Location: In a white room, with black curtains near the station
|
Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2020 7:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
kwase wrote: | I heard that only .6% of Americans have been tested. Is that true? If so, we have no clue how many people are infected. |
Yup it's trending towards .7%, but very few countries are above 1%. That's the point of the antibody testing is to get some kind of calibration on how many people have already had this bug. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kwase Star Player
Joined: 21 Mar 2008 Posts: 3069
|
Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2020 7:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
TooMuchMajicBuss wrote: | kwase wrote: | I heard that only .6% of Americans have been tested. Is that true? If so, we have no clue how many people are infected. |
Yup it's trending towards .7%, but very few countries are above 1%. That's the point of the antibody testing is to get some kind of calibration on how many people have already had this bug. |
So are we just hoping that people will quarantine and start showing symptoms and show up at the hospital? I guess that might work as long as theirs not a significant amount of people that remain asymptomatic. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
lar9149 Star Player
Joined: 10 Jul 2010 Posts: 2342
|
Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2020 7:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
cal1piggy wrote: | lar9149 wrote: | cal1piggy wrote: | initial results from telluride co antibody testing: Of the approximately 6,000 county residents that were tested during the first round, around 1,600 have received their results, 98 percent of which have come back negative.
IF 2% infected rate for the ski town telluride co is representative for colorado, there is a huge amount of undetected cases. population of colorado is 5.7 million whereas there are 5429 confirmed cases (0.095%). so the ratio of [b]confirmed cases to projected cases through antibody test is about 1:21. Of course the question is IF the tiny ski town of Telluride is representative of the state of Colorado? [/b]
IMO and if the antibody test in telluride is truly representative, then the virus may not be any more deadly or require any more hospital resources or cause pneumonia at a higher rate than the flu. but the problem is that it is incredibly contagious and it kills and requires hospital resources COMPRESSED into a very short time period that would overwhelm hospitals
https://www.telluridenews.com/news/article_c8c45a10-7920-11ea-bffb-0b7144cf4ec4.html
The second round of countywide COVID-19 antibody blood tests has been postponed indefinitely, officials announced Tuesday. The free, voluntary tests that c19 — a subsidiary of parent company United Biomedical Inc. (UBI) — provided to the county in an effort to help manage the pandemic locally aren’t being processed as fast as officials initially planned. Headquartered in New York, UBI’s staff has been cut by 40 percent due to state restrictions. There’s also a lack of supplies, including personal protective equipment.
“This is frustrating and disappointing, but we remain confident in our public health approach and are determined to get through this,” county public information officer Susan Lilly said.
When the partnership between the county and UBI was announced in mid-March, officials praised the test’s quick turnaround time for receiving results, which was supposed to be 48 to 72 hours. But the current backup has caused significant delays. Of the approximately 6,000 county residents that were tested during the first round, around 1,600 have received their results, 98 percent of which have come back negative. Officials also announced Tuesday the tenth positive case — a 41-year-old female who lives in the county. |
Cal1 I was actually thinking about this study last night..now in my opinion the study does emphasize the number of there are a greater number of virus cases we don't know about, but I am not sure of the accuracy of 21:1.
Reason being is something called Bayes theorem (link below) where the "real world" accuracy of a tests is dependent on it incidence of the disease and the accuracy of the tests in a lab (sensitivity and specificity). Now unfortunately there isn't much published information on the a "lab accuracy" of these tests since the FDA fast tracked them. But I heard some are good, some are okay. Lets take a hypothetical example
Assume the antibody tests accuracy is 1% (probably not that good)
Lets say for example the 1,600 above. Assume 2% of them have the virus.
number of people with virus = 1,600 X 2% = 32
without virus = 1568
people with virus testing positive = 32 X 99% = 31.68 about 32
people without virus testing positive = 1568 X 1% = 15.68 about 15
actual accuracy of tests = 32/(32+15) = 68%
21:1 take 21 X 0.68
this wouldn't be so bad but the actual ratio would be about 15:1
Now if the tests isn't as "lab accurate" as 1%, the ratio could be something like 10:1
Still emphasizing a large ratio but it wouldn't be as much as 21:1
The other issues is lets say if you want to do with the governor of New York wants and people who tests positive for the antibody are immune (assuming that is true) and should go back to work. Well..if only 68% of the results are right, that means some people will test positive and think they are immune when they are not.
http://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/otlt/MPH-Modules/BS/BS704_Probability/BS704_Probability6.html |
yes we need more numbers.
lets say if it is 1-2%, what do you think of my opinion that it is actually several times that due to the test really is a snapshot of the situation of ~2 weeks ago.
i believe it takes ~2 weeks for antibody to turn positive? |
Yes you are correct so this is only a snapshot of the situation 2 weeks prior. So unfortunately a lagging indicator.
And since it could take 2 weeks to become positive on an antibody tests, it is possible someone can just gotten the virus and still be negative on an antibody test (depending on the person as I suppose some people can develop antibodies faster).
I think you said before in an ideal world we would do a virus test and antibody test..but lets face it, we don't have the availability of tests to do that right now. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cal1piggy Star Player
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 Posts: 2584
|
Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2020 7:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
TooMuchMajicBuss wrote: | Cal1 I agree the 2 week lag time for antibodies to appear has to be a factor in extrapolating the data. Beyond that, there are lots of variables, but the theory is sound. We definitely need more data, and a much higher confidence level on projections than we have now. And of course a high multiplier would be nice.
New cases are trending flat and below peak for several days now. |
yes TooMuchMajicBuss
in places like florida, georigia that did not go hard on social distancing until very recently, it is quite possible that they had another doubling or 2 doubling during the time they waited compared to the others.
same in places like nyc and phila and other east coast cities, the density may not allow as efficient a social distancing. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cal1piggy Star Player
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 Posts: 2584
|
Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2020 7:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
lar9149 wrote: | cal1piggy wrote: | lar9149 wrote: | cal1piggy wrote: | initial results from telluride co antibody testing: Of the approximately 6,000 county residents that were tested during the first round, around 1,600 have received their results, 98 percent of which have come back negative.
IF 2% infected rate for the ski town telluride co is representative for colorado, there is a huge amount of undetected cases. population of colorado is 5.7 million whereas there are 5429 confirmed cases (0.095%). so the ratio of [b]confirmed cases to projected cases through antibody test is about 1:21. Of course the question is IF the tiny ski town of Telluride is representative of the state of Colorado? [/b]
IMO and if the antibody test in telluride is truly representative, then the virus may not be any more deadly or require any more hospital resources or cause pneumonia at a higher rate than the flu. but the problem is that it is incredibly contagious and it kills and requires hospital resources COMPRESSED into a very short time period that would overwhelm hospitals
https://www.telluridenews.com/news/article_c8c45a10-7920-11ea-bffb-0b7144cf4ec4.html
The second round of countywide COVID-19 antibody blood tests has been postponed indefinitely, officials announced Tuesday. The free, voluntary tests that c19 — a subsidiary of parent company United Biomedical Inc. (UBI) — provided to the county in an effort to help manage the pandemic locally aren’t being processed as fast as officials initially planned. Headquartered in New York, UBI’s staff has been cut by 40 percent due to state restrictions. There’s also a lack of supplies, including personal protective equipment.
“This is frustrating and disappointing, but we remain confident in our public health approach and are determined to get through this,” county public information officer Susan Lilly said.
When the partnership between the county and UBI was announced in mid-March, officials praised the test’s quick turnaround time for receiving results, which was supposed to be 48 to 72 hours. But the current backup has caused significant delays. Of the approximately 6,000 county residents that were tested during the first round, around 1,600 have received their results, 98 percent of which have come back negative. Officials also announced Tuesday the tenth positive case — a 41-year-old female who lives in the county. |
Cal1 I was actually thinking about this study last night..now in my opinion the study does emphasize the number of there are a greater number of virus cases we don't know about, but I am not sure of the accuracy of 21:1.
Reason being is something called Bayes theorem (link below) where the "real world" accuracy of a tests is dependent on it incidence of the disease and the accuracy of the tests in a lab (sensitivity and specificity). Now unfortunately there isn't much published information on the a "lab accuracy" of these tests since the FDA fast tracked them. But I heard some are good, some are okay. Lets take a hypothetical example
Assume the antibody tests accuracy is 1% (probably not that good)
Lets say for example the 1,600 above. Assume 2% of them have the virus.
number of people with virus = 1,600 X 2% = 32
without virus = 1568
people with virus testing positive = 32 X 99% = 31.68 about 32
people without virus testing positive = 1568 X 1% = 15.68 about 15
actual accuracy of tests = 32/(32+15) = 68%
21:1 take 21 X 0.68
this wouldn't be so bad but the actual ratio would be about 15:1
Now if the tests isn't as "lab accurate" as 1%, the ratio could be something like 10:1
Still emphasizing a large ratio but it wouldn't be as much as 21:1
The other issues is lets say if you want to do with the governor of New York wants and people who tests positive for the antibody are immune (assuming that is true) and should go back to work. Well..if only 68% of the results are right, that means some people will test positive and think they are immune when they are not.
http://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/otlt/MPH-Modules/BS/BS704_Probability/BS704_Probability6.html |
yes we need more numbers.
lets say if it is 1-2%, what do you think of my opinion that it is actually several times that due to the test really is a snapshot of the situation of ~2 weeks ago.
i believe it takes ~2 weeks for antibody to turn positive? |
Yes you are correct so this is only a snapshot of the situation 2 weeks prior. So unfortunately a lagging indicator.
And since it could take 2 weeks to become positive on an antibody tests, it is possible someone can just gotten the virus and still be negative on an antibody test (depending on the person as I suppose some people can develop antibodies faster).
I think you said before in an ideal world we would do a virus test and antibody test..but lets face it, we don't have the availability of tests to do that right now. |
if we only had this amount of testing and quarantined italy/korea 6 weeks ago... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cal1piggy Star Player
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 Posts: 2584
|
Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2020 12:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/gilead-increase-number-of-participants-in-two-trials-for-experimental-covid-19-treatment-2020-04-09
"Gilead Sciences Inc. GILD, -1.97% increased the number of participants in two ongoing clinical trials for remdesivir, its experimental treatment for COVID-19. According to ClinicalTrials.gov, the drugmaker upped the number of participants in a global, randomized, open-label Phase 3 trial for people with moderate forms of the disease to 1,600 from 600. It did the same for a similar trial evaluating remdesivir in patients with severe COVID-19, to 2,400 participants from 400. The first results from those trials are expected in May."
https://www.pharmalive.com/all-eyes-on-gileads-readout-of-remdesivir-for-covid-19/ :
RBC believes these numbers include the compassionate use programs and writes, “It is unclear whether all of these patients will be considered in the primary endpoint, but any additional patients should help improve the powering to detect a potential treatment effect (though also indicates they believe more patients would be needed to be able to show a benefit).”
They go on to write, “We believe the changes improve alignment to the latest understanding of COVID-19’s course and should maximize sensitivity to detect any potential treatment effect, though they also imply that—perhaps based on data the company may be observing from ongoing experience with the drug—the magnitude of benefit, if any, is likely to be modest. This aligns with our view that remdesivir, like other COVID-19 drugs in development, would be more likely to have incremental effects in specific populations vs. proving to be a panacea.” |
|
Back to top |
|
|
lar9149 Star Player
Joined: 10 Jul 2010 Posts: 2342
|
Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2020 2:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So originally Cal1 we were expecting these results in April..now a delay of a month or more because of the need for more participants.
Dam I was wishing for something now..lets hope the saying the best things come for those who wait applies here. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cal1piggy Star Player
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 Posts: 2584
|
Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2020 4:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
lar9149 wrote: | So originally Cal1 we were expecting these results in April..now a delay of a month or more because of the need for more participants.
Dam I was wishing for something now..lets hope the saying the best things come for those who wait applies here. |
lar9149 - yes looks like a delay. lets hope for the best here... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mamba81 Star Player
Joined: 19 Nov 2019 Posts: 2027
|
Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2020 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I can't wait to get back to work in October 🤪 _________________ Kobe Forever |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Inspector Gadget Retired Number
Joined: 18 Apr 2016 Posts: 46490
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005 Posts: 31763
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
eddiejonze Star Player
Joined: 19 Dec 2013 Posts: 7191
|
Posted: Fri Apr 10, 2020 10:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
cal1piggy wrote: | https://www.marketwatch.com/story/gilead-increase-number-of-participants-in-two-trials-for-experimental-covid-19-treatment-2020-04-09
"Gilead Sciences Inc. GILD, -1.97% increased the number of participants in two ongoing clinical trials for remdesivir, its experimental treatment for COVID-19. According to ClinicalTrials.gov, the drugmaker upped the number of participants in a global, randomized, open-label Phase 3 trial for people with moderate forms of the disease to 1,600 from 600. It did the same for a similar trial evaluating remdesivir in patients with severe COVID-19, to 2,400 participants from 400. The first results from those trials are expected in May."
https://www.pharmalive.com/all-eyes-on-gileads-readout-of-remdesivir-for-covid-19/ :
RBC believes these numbers include the compassionate use programs and writes, “It is unclear whether all of these patients will be considered in the primary endpoint, but any additional patients should help improve the powering to detect a potential treatment effect (though also indicates they believe more patients would be needed to be able to show a benefit).”
They go on to write, “We believe the changes improve alignment to the latest understanding of COVID-19’s course and should maximize sensitivity to detect any potential treatment effect, though they also imply that—perhaps based on data the company may be observing from ongoing experience with the drug—the magnitude of benefit, if any, is likely to be modest. This aligns with our view that remdesivir, like other COVID-19 drugs in development, would be more likely to have incremental effects in specific populations vs. proving to be a panacea.” |
Hey Cal1, what was the name of the company that is almost done with a test to see if you have already had the virus? I read a story on one of the big news sites and now forget which one, or the name of the drug/maker.
thanks! _________________ Creatures crawl in search of blood, To terrorize y'alls neighborhood. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Inspector Gadget Retired Number
Joined: 18 Apr 2016 Posts: 46490
|
Posted: Fri Apr 10, 2020 12:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I appreciate all the updates, thanks guys. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
lakersfever714 Franchise Player
Joined: 05 Jan 2016 Posts: 11597
|
Posted: Fri Apr 10, 2020 12:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Trump's "game-changer" drug Chloroquine has proven inclusive by Chinese doctors who's been treating it for patients for months now. Should the public listen to a guy who's never studied medicines in his life or to someone who's studied medicines his entire life? Maybe Dr. Fauci won this one.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/chinese-doctors-at-coronavirus-hub-cast-doubt-on-chloroquine-as-cure-11586448660 _________________ LeGoat! LeMazing! LeGend! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cal1piggy Star Player
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 Posts: 2584
|
Posted: Fri Apr 10, 2020 1:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
eddiejonze wrote: | cal1piggy wrote: | https://www.marketwatch.com/story/gilead-increase-number-of-participants-in-two-trials-for-experimental-covid-19-treatment-2020-04-09
"Gilead Sciences Inc. GILD, -1.97% increased the number of participants in two ongoing clinical trials for remdesivir, its experimental treatment for COVID-19. According to ClinicalTrials.gov, the drugmaker upped the number of participants in a global, randomized, open-label Phase 3 trial for people with moderate forms of the disease to 1,600 from 600. It did the same for a similar trial evaluating remdesivir in patients with severe COVID-19, to 2,400 participants from 400. The first results from those trials are expected in May."
https://www.pharmalive.com/all-eyes-on-gileads-readout-of-remdesivir-for-covid-19/ :
RBC believes these numbers include the compassionate use programs and writes, “It is unclear whether all of these patients will be considered in the primary endpoint, but any additional patients should help improve the powering to detect a potential treatment effect (though also indicates they believe more patients would be needed to be able to show a benefit).”
They go on to write, “We believe the changes improve alignment to the latest understanding of COVID-19’s course and should maximize sensitivity to detect any potential treatment effect, though they also imply that—perhaps based on data the company may be observing from ongoing experience with the drug—the magnitude of benefit, if any, is likely to be modest. This aligns with our view that remdesivir, like other COVID-19 drugs in development, would be more likely to have incremental effects in specific populations vs. proving to be a panacea.” |
Hey Cal1, what was the name of the company that is almost done with a test to see if you have already had the virus? I read a story on one of the big news sites and now forget which one, or the name of the drug/maker.
thanks! |
there are many companies working on antibody based test to see if you had the virus. i think the fda approved one is cellex - limited by capacity.
the company doing the test for telluride is United Biomedical in New York
stanford is doing the test for santa clara |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cal1piggy Star Player
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 Posts: 2584
|
Posted: Fri Apr 10, 2020 1:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
the 'study' i am waiting on is when they check on the statistics for those taking chloroquine for lupus and other diseases. and then compare the % of those with confirmed covid19 to those not on chloroquine. then is it statistically significant. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
RI Laker Star Player
Joined: 27 Jun 2005 Posts: 7134
|
Posted: Fri Apr 10, 2020 1:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cal1piggy wrote: |
the 'study' i am waiting on is when they check on the statistics for those taking chloroquine for lupus and other diseases. and then compare the % of those with confirmed covid19 to those not on chloroquine. then is it statistically significant. |
In China I trust.......NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cal1piggy Star Player
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 Posts: 2584
|
Posted: Fri Apr 10, 2020 1:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
RI Laker wrote: | cal1piggy wrote: |
the 'study' i am waiting on is when they check on the statistics for those taking chloroquine for lupus and other diseases. and then compare the % of those with confirmed covid19 to those not on chloroquine. then is it statistically significant. |
In China I trust.......NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
i think there are a lot of lupus patients here. the daily press conferences have mentioned this. given the political nature, i suspect it will be done. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
lar9149 Star Player
Joined: 10 Jul 2010 Posts: 2342
|
Posted: Fri Apr 10, 2020 2:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Inspector Gadget wrote: | https://sports.yahoo.com/security-guard-demarcus-cousins-draymond-200044923.html |
Title needs to be changed on that article it says
"Draymond Green and Rajon Rondo dies of coronavirus"
but its the security guard for them that died. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
lar9149 Star Player
Joined: 10 Jul 2010 Posts: 2342
|
Posted: Fri Apr 10, 2020 8:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Cal1 or anyone out there, have you heard of anything about the US Death Rates increase the most on Tuesday (see below analysis)?
Is this by chance or it is some reason?? I mean an increase to 51.7% on Tuesday seems to not be random. In fact it seems the % inc is the least on Thursday than steadily increases to Tuesday (with a big jump on Tuesday) and drops heavily after that.
Cases for comparison, seem to be constant increase most days (around 25-28%), which makes sense.
Like perhaps people who die over the weekend and because of less doctors & staff over the weekend and lab results arriving after death, doctors have backlogs on Monday & Tuesday to connect the death to coronavirus?
I did an analysis (from data collected since March 13th thru today April 10th)..
% increase in deaths by day of the week
Day % increase in deaths
Mon 33.6%
Tues 51.7%
Wed 24.3%
Thurs 9.8%
Friday 13.0%
Sat 20.0%
Sun 34.3%
For comparison, % increase of cases by day of the week
Mon 13.2%
Tues 28.4%
Wed 23.1%
Thurs 25.3%
Friday 9.8%
Sat 0.5%
Sun 28.6% |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cal1piggy Star Player
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 Posts: 2584
|
Posted: Fri Apr 10, 2020 8:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
PLEASE LET THIS BE TRUE - https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-04-11/36-of-53-severe-COVID-19-cases-improved-with-remdesivir--PB47nMubwA/index.html
From article:
Two thirds of severe COVID-19 cases improve with remdesivir: NEJM
Updated 11:52, 11-Apr-2020
More than two-thirds of severely ill COVID-19 patients saw their condition improve after treatment with remdesivir, an experimental drug being developed by Gilead Sciences, according to new data based on patient observation.
The analysis, published on Friday by the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), does not detail what other treatments the 61 hospitalized patients were given and data on eight of them were not included – in one case because of a dosing error.
The paper's author called the findings "hopeful," but cautioned that it is difficult to interpret the results since they do not include comparison to a control group, as would be the case in a randomized clinical trial. In addition, the patient numbers were small, the details being disclosed are limited, and the follow-up time was relatively short.
There are currently no approved treatments or preventive vaccines for COVID-19, the respiratory illness caused by the novel coronavirus that has killed more than 100,000 people worldwide.
Gilead last month sharply limited its compassionate use program for remdesivir and is conducting its own clinical trials of the antiviral drug, with results expected in coming weeks. Researchers in China as well as the U.S. National Institutes of Health are also testing the drug in COVID-19 patients.
The new analysis includes patients in the United States, Europe, Canada and Japan who received a 10-day course of intravenous remdesivir.
Before the treatment, 30 patients were on mechanical ventilators, and four were on a machine that pumps blood from the patient's body through an artificial oxygenator. After a median follow-up of 18 days, 36 patients, or 68 percent, had an improvement in oxygen-support class, including more than half of the 30 patients receiving mechanical ventilation who had their breathing tubes removed. A total of 25 patients, or 47 percent, were discharged from the hospital. Seven patients, 13 percent of the total, died.
Twelve patients, 23 percent, had serious side effects including multiple-organ-dysfunction syndrome, septic shock and acute kidney injury.
"We look forward to the results of controlled clinical trials to potentially validate these findings," wrote Dr. Jonathan Grein, the paper's lead author and director of hospital epidemiology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles.
Last edited by cal1piggy on Fri Apr 10, 2020 9:22 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cal1piggy Star Player
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 Posts: 2584
|
Posted: Fri Apr 10, 2020 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
lar9149 wrote: | Cal1 or anyone out there, have you heard of anything about the US Death Rates increase the most on Tuesday (see below analysis)?
Is this by chance or it is some reason?? I mean an increase to 51.7% on Tuesday seems to not be random. In fact it seems the % inc is the least on Thursday than steadily increases to Tuesday (with a big jump on Tuesday) and drops heavily after that.
Cases for comparison, seem to be constant increase most days (around 25-28%), which makes sense.
Like perhaps people who die over the weekend and because of less doctors & staff over the weekend and lab results arriving after death, doctors have backlogs on Monday & Tuesday to connect the death to coronavirus?
I did an analysis (from data collected since March 13th thru today April 10th)..
% increase in deaths by day of the week
Day % increase in deaths
Mon 33.6%
Tues 51.7%
Wed 24.3%
Thurs 9.8%
Friday 13.0%
Sat 20.0%
Sun 34.3%
For comparison, % increase of cases by day of the week
Mon 13.2%
Tues 28.4%
Wed 23.1%
Thurs 25.3%
Friday 9.8%
Sat 0.5%
Sun 28.6% |
truly odd
i heard some officials said weekend numbers are not the best.
but one would have expected that uncounted deaths would have been added on monday. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|