Covid - 19

[detltu]

DR. MEHMET OZ: “Well the VA study looked at older and quite a bit sicker patients, all male patients in their hospitals, and they showed that the drug by itself didn't help, it might harm that population.”

Seems like even Dr. Oz calls it a study. When did he say it wasn’t a “study.”
It seems like there is some confusion in this thread around what is a “study” and what is an anecdote.

Friscodawg and dawg80 cite anecdotes that HCQ works. I don’t doubt that some doctors and patients feel like it saved their/patients lives. The question is whether it saves more lives than the standard of care. That is where it gets iffy, and in the case of the VA study, it was shown to be worse.

To be fair they have "studies" on their side as well:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32205204
https://www.contagionlive.com/news/r...ne-for-covid19
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41421-020-0156-0
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/01/h...s-malaria.html

The bottom line is it showed promise early on, but as the testing has become more rigorous and regimented the results are mixed at best. To get a thorough stamp of approval would take years so the "studies" we have are the best we can do for now.

[dawg80]

DR. MEHMET OZ: “Well the VA study looked at older and quite a bit sicker patients, all male patients in their hospitals, and they showed that the drug by itself didn't help, it might harm that population.”

Seems like even Dr. Oz calls it a study. When did he say it wasn’t a “study.”

It seems like there is some confusion in this thread around what is a “study” and what is an anecdote.

Friscodawg and dawg80 cite anecdotes that HCQ works. I don’t doubt that some doctors and patients feel like it saved their/patients lives. The question is whether it saves more lives than the standard of care. That is where it gets iffy, and in the case of the VA study, it was shown to be worse.

He acknowledged it did not rise to the level of a true "study" when pushed by Tucker Carlson during an interview. That's when I saw Dr. Oz say it. But, I'll say it again...so? Call it whatever you want...an analysis of data...who really cares? It contributes to the overall INFORMATION being gathered about this brand new virus.

As for my anecdotal "evidence," well, I assign the same level of scrutiny to it that I assign to the VA "study." It all contributes to the overall INFORMATION being gathered. I, for one, will not question the professional judgment of doctors who are on the frontlines fighting this war. And I definitely would not challenge by friend's adamant defense of the use of the malaria drug. While it is true he is a great fellow, a gentle giant, he played OT at 6'5" 305 lbs and I saw him lift, by himself, a very heavy bar-b-cue iron grill into the back of a pick-up truck. He could pile drive most people into the ground!

[MoonPieBlue]

DR. MEHMET OZ: “Well the VA study looked at older and quite a bit sicker patients, all male patients in their hospitals, and they showed that the drug by itself didn't help, it might harm that population.”

Seems like even Dr. Oz calls it a study. When did he say it wasn’t a “study.”

It seems like there is some confusion in this thread around what is a “study” and what is an anecdote.

Friscodawg and dawg80 cite anecdotes that HCQ works. I don’t doubt that some doctors and patients feel like it saved their/patients lives. The question is whether it saves more lives than the standard of care. That is where it gets iffy, and in the case of the VA study, it was shown to be worse.

Again, I don't give a sh*t what doctor Oz calls it either. It's not a study, they 'studied' nothing they analyzed data.

“However, hydroxychloroquine, with or without azithromycin, was more likely to be prescribed to patients with more severe disease, as assessed by baseline ventilatory status and metabolic and hematologic parameters. Thus, as expected, increased mortality was observed in patients treated with hydroxychloroquine, both with and without azithromycin.

They even state they treated the most 'severe' with HC/AZ. Can they say how many of those treated with HC/AZ would have died with no treatment (no they can't). Can they say whether the 11% that died from no treatment might have been saved if they have been treated with HC/AZ, no they can't.

So with you saying "it was shown to be worse". No it wasn't, 80% of the people survived given HC/AZ (again these were probably the more severe). So what you're saying with your statement is that this same 80% (or more) would have survived given nothing, I seriously doubt if that is the case. The authors even state that there was significant difference in demographics and measurements (i.e., blood pressure between the two groups).

BTW, I'm glad you're back on. While we rather see things in the same light, you do at least make me think about things in more detail.

[dawg80]

BTW, I'm glad you're back on. While we rather see things in the same light, you do at least make me think about things in more detail.

Ya mean Goosey was gone? When? For how long? I didn't notice...nor miss him. But, he does add an air of comic-relief to these serious topics, I'll grant that.

[Guisslapp]

[COLOR=#333333][I]“However, hydroxychloroquine, with or without azithromycin, was more likely to be prescribed to patients with more severe disease, as assessed by baseline ventilatory status and metabolic and hematologic parameters. Thus, as expected, increased mortality was observed in patients treated with hydroxychloroquine, both with and without azithromycin.

They even state they treated the most 'severe' with HC/AZ. Can they say how many of those treated with HC/AZ would have died with no treatment (no they can't).

I noticed where you cut off your quote. The next sentence is important:

Nevertheless, the increased risk of overall mortality in the hydroxychloroquine-only group persisted after adjusting for the propensity of being treated with the drug.

The sentences following that one theorize that known cardiac toxicity effects from HCQ may cause the difference.

Regarding your question - the study explains how they worked the factor of severity into their statistical models in the discussion of results, which supported their conclusion that HCQ is worse than the standard of care when normalizing for severity. The same can not be said for HCQ+Zpac. In that case, there was not a statistical difference in their population.

[dawg80]

This graph is among the overflow of "data" being put out there. Basically, this graph places each state based on recent trends, last 21 days, and where each is headed. The lower left quadrant is GOOD, that's where you want to be, and the upper right quadrant is BAD. Note that Louisiana was in the upper right, but has fallen into the lower right quadrant. Still not where we want to be, but better than where we were.

Note also that some states, like Ohio and Minnysoda, are careening toward the bad upper right quadrant.

[PawDawg]

For some reason the "good news" is not being reported...

The "good news" is that very few who are not almost 80 and/or not experiencing comorbidities are getting well and not dying. More "good news" could be that those who fall into these two categories will be the focus in the future not the entire freekin' population.

[Guisslapp]

And one more observation:
The current NIH guidelines recommend against the use of HCQ and Zpac outride the use of clinical trials:

Except in the context of a clinical trial, the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) recommends against the use of the following drugs for the treatment of COVID-19:
The combination of hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin (AIII) because of the potential for toxicities.

The NIH updates these recommendations as new data comes in.

https://covid19treatmentguidelines.n...investigation/

[dawg80]

My bad, Minn not so bad, it's North Dakota and Iowa and some others trending in the wrong direction.

[Guisslapp]

For some reason the "good news" is not being reported...

The "good news" is that very few who are not almost 80 and/or not experiencing comorbidities are getting well and not dying. More "good news" could be that those who fall into these two categories will be the focus in the future not the entire freekin' population.

Based on the April 14 NYC data, you look like you are in pretty good shape if you are under 45. Not sure if NYC demographics are representative.

Of course, if you are over 45 and have high blood pressure, good luck.

https://www.worldometers.info/corona...-demographics/

[dawg80]

Based on the April 14 NYC data, you look like you are in pretty good shape if you are under 45. Not sure if NYC demographics are representative.

Of course, if you are over 45 and have high blood pressure, good luck.

https://www.worldometers.info/corona...-demographics/

Not just high blood pressure...although that might be the ultimate metric that captures all the risks, IDK. Folks with diabetes are said to be at high risk. Does diabetes also cause high blood pressure?

In the Louisiana stats it shows 60% of those who died from C-19 had "hypertension," which is also high blood pressure. But other risk factors, listed separately were chronic cardiac illness and obesity. And, although listed separately, I assume patients with chronic cardiac illness and obesity would also have high blood pressure.

[Guisslapp]

Not just high blood pressure...although that might be the ultimate metric that captures all the risks, IDK. Folks with diabetes are said to be at high risk. Does diabetes also cause high blood pressure?

In the Louisiana stats it shows 60% of those who died from C-19 had "hypertension," which is also high blood pressure. But other risk factors, listed separately were chronic cardiac illness and obesity. And, although listed separately, I assume patients with chronic cardiac illness and obesity would also have high blood pressure.

Yeah, JAMA is reporting the hypertension is the most common comorbidity factor (57 percent) with obesity and diabetes 2nd and 3rd.

[PawDawg]

NYC is the exception, not the rule. They've admitted that they are counting many deaths without knowing if they ever tested positive. That fact alone skews the numbers. We know it is the same in Orleans/Jefferson. 45 and HBP is a 180 from the actual which is almost 80 and comorbidity. Of course the haters have been saying HBP alone is a risk for any age. That's a flat out lie.

[MoonPieBlue]

Based on the April 14 NYC data, you look like you are in pretty good shape if you are under 45. Not sure if NYC demographics are representative.

Of course, if you are over 45 and have high blood pressure, good luck.

https://www.worldometers.info/corona...-demographics/

That's kind of a wide range 45 to 64. I'd image the vast majority within that group are over 55.

Here's Louisiana's breakdown

Age range	Deaths	% of Total
<18	1	0.1%
18-29	7	0.5%
30-39	33	2%
40-49	56	4%
50-59	137	10%
60-69	272	19%
70+	898	64%

[Guisslapp]

NYC is the exception, not the rule. They've admitted that they are counting many deaths without knowing if they ever tested positive. That fact alone skews the numbers. We know it is the same in Orleans/Jefferson. 45 and HBP is a 180 from the actual which is almost 80 and comorbidity. Of course the haters have been saying HBP alone is a risk for any age. That's a flat out lie.

Stop being dumb.

COVID deaths have a certain progression that doesn’t require a test to be reasonably certain.

Post your data if you have actually seen anything that shows the opposite. 25% of the deaths are folks in the 45 to 64 range with one of the mentioned comoorbidities.