Some data coming out on the malaria drug. Not good.
SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)
- Thread starter Don't Kill Bill
- Start date
Yeah, absolutely and my view is the same. There’s going to be a lot of people taking 80%, self employed or otherwise, who just don’t need that much money for the next few months. It is a massive amount of money that is going to be paid back in the future and I have no problem paying extra tax for the people that need it.
Would you rather pay 80% to all self employed and people who’s companies have agreed to it. Or would you rather give EVERYONE not working a smaller amount, proportionate to their rent/mortgage/bills etc.
Would be so funny if it were not sad because lives are at stake! 
Too good to be true IMO. If that is the case, that this is essentially just another cold/flu. I think the number of infected is significantly higher than the official numbers, but not half the population being infected. That would mean that for every official case, there are more than 4000 other infected people who have no symptoms. Sorry, but I don't see it happening. There might be 2 or 3, or even 10 asymptotic cases, but not thousands (for everyone with symptoms).
Finally, the vast majority of cases result negative. If half the population is infected, then even just doing random testings means that around half will result positive. Yesterday there were already done more than 70k cases, with less than 8k being positive. So even that people who are sick are getting preferential testings, still the ratio is closer to 0.1 than 0.5.
I have respect for Oxford, but it screams bullshit.
Can you expand on it please?
it probably is bollocks, but it would be amazing if it was true.
Not looking good on the antivirals either.
Background: The novel coronavirus pneumonia (COVID-19) outbreak has caused a global pandemic, however, effective antiviral therapeutics are still unavailable. Methods: Our study (NCT04252885), designated as ELACOI, was an exploratory randomized (2:2:1) and controlled one, exploring the efficacy and safety of lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) or arbidol monotherapy treating mild/moderate COVID-19 patients. Results: This study successful enrolled 44 patients with mild/moderate COVID-19, with 21 randomly assigned to receive LPV/r, 16 to arbidol and 7 to no antiviral medication as control. Baseline characteristics of three groups were comparable. The median time of positive-to-negative conversion of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid was 8.5 (IQR 3, 13) days in the LPV/r group, 7 (IQR 3, 10.5) days in the arbidol group and 4 (IQR 3, 10.5) days in the control group (P=0.751). The positive-to-negative conversion rates of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid at day 7 and 14 did not show significant differences in the LPV/r group (42.9%, 76.2%), the arbidol group (62.5%, 87.5%) and the control group (71.4%, 71.4%) (all P>0.53). No statistical differences were found among three groups in the rates of antipyresis, cough alleviation, improvement of chest CT or the deterioration rate of clinical status (all P > 0.05). Overall, 5 (23.8%) patients in the LPV/r group experienced adverse events during the follow-up period. No apparent adverse events occurred in the arbidol or control group. Conclusion: LPV/r or arbidol monotherapy seems little benefit for improving the clinical outcome of mild/moderate COVID-19. LPV/r might lead to more adverse events. Due to the limitation of small sample size, further verification is needed in the future.
Background: The novel coronavirus pneumonia (COVID-19) outbreak has caused a global pandemic, however, effective antiviral therapeutics are still unavailable. Methods: Our study (NCT04252885), designated as ELACOI, was an exploratory randomized (2:2:1) and controlled one, exploring the efficacy and safety of lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) or arbidol monotherapy treating mild/moderate COVID-19 patients. Results: This study successful enrolled 44 patients with mild/moderate COVID-19, with 21 randomly assigned to receive LPV/r, 16 to arbidol and 7 to no antiviral medication as control. Baseline characteristics of three groups were comparable. The median time of positive-to-negative conversion of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid was 8.5 (IQR 3, 13) days in the LPV/r group, 7 (IQR 3, 10.5) days in the arbidol group and 4 (IQR 3, 10.5) days in the control group (P=0.751). The positive-to-negative conversion rates of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid at day 7 and 14 did not show significant differences in the LPV/r group (42.9%, 76.2%), the arbidol group (62.5%, 87.5%) and the control group (71.4%, 71.4%) (all P>0.53). No statistical differences were found among three groups in the rates of antipyresis, cough alleviation, improvement of chest CT or the deterioration rate of clinical status (all P > 0.05). Overall, 5 (23.8%) patients in the LPV/r group experienced adverse events during the follow-up period. No apparent adverse events occurred in the arbidol or control group. Conclusion: LPV/r or arbidol monotherapy seems little benefit for improving the clinical outcome of mild/moderate COVID-19. LPV/r might lead to more adverse events. Due to the limitation of small sample size, further verification is needed in the future.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
It cannot be overstated what a cnut Mike Ashley is.
Trying to find some details now.
Edit: This is all I can find so far.
Monday night, Evercore ISI analyst Umer Raffat distributed an abstract of an unpublished Chinese trial of hydroxychloroquine in patients with mild Covid-19 that appears to have had disappointing results. According to Raffat, the study found that 87% of patients on hydroxychloroquine experienced virological clearance by day 7, compared with 93% of patients in the control arm.
Last edited:
Fixed that for you.
has anyone attempted getting a 3 month delay on their mortgages? i haven't had any reduction in my salary or anything, but to be honest it would be nice to be able to bank 3 month's of mortgage payments just in case anything happens in the future. was just wondering how stringent they are in giving this (particularly if you haven't lost your job or anything).
France +24h
Cases: 22300 +2444
Deaths: 1100 +240
The department of science think the lockdown will be extended by a further 4 weeks.
Cases: 22300 +2444
Deaths: 1100 +240
The department of science think the lockdown will be extended by a further 4 weeks.
Would love to see Sports Direct and Wetherspoons going out of business but they employ too many people.
Damn, that sounds like a great way to pass the virus to a lot of people. Guessing it’ll be on all the packages as well if there’s any about.
A guy died trying out the malaria drug.
https://thehill.com/policy/healthca...ne-phosphate-in-effort-to-prevent-coronavirus
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
That means nothing though, except him possibly winning the Darwin award. It wasn't even the malaria drug, but some substance used for it, we don't know how much he ingested, we don't know if he had any preconditions that means you cannot take that drug, and so on. I mean, you can die by getting too much paracetamol, so this is no news.
Maybe you're right, but higher earners usually have higher outgoings too, I know some people who earn way more than me, but they barely make ends meet, they'll still be screwed if their income dries up.
The agreement is already in place to give workers 80% so why shouldn't the self employed get the same?
I didn't see you raise these concerns when employers were getting this given to them a week ago (though admittedly I could have missed this).
The fact is it would be very costly to start means testing this, and the manpower isn't their I wouldn't think. It's simpler to do a blanket payment of a fixed amount of what ALL earn, so we can all exist at something similar to what we do now. Without anyone getting into serious financial trouble.
I was referring to controlled studies. Early data not looking good.
I’m saying that someone who earns £45k, doesn’t need to be given 80% of their pay to look after their family. My issue is not with self employed people, it’s with people who don’t need that much money, being given it, while others with less, end up with no job or unpaid leave.
So, if someone gets given the £2900 cap, how much of that is paying mortgage/rent/food? What are they doing with the rest of the money? That money that they can spend on whatever they want, is going to be paid back in tax in the future.
Again, so you’re clear, in no part of what I’ve said do I suggest people living month to month not be given immediate help. Even if the government gave a set amount to everyone this month, they could come up with something fairer in a few weeks.
It’s an interesting theory that it’s been prevalent for a lot longer than previously known but it falls majorly flat when you ask why its only now that people are ending up in hospital and actually dying from it with nobody noticing a link.
So Many of us willing to change every aspect of life as we know it to protect people like her. She really should be arrested and prosecuted for manslaughter or even pre meditated murder.
Some very tough and draconian measures needed urgently.
This is pretty bad (though a very small study).
I would love that "worst flu/cough of my life" that I had in February to have been the Covid virus and that I can't therefore now infect anyone else. Sadly, right now it's just another theory, and potentially a dangerous one if it gets too much currency before mass antibody screening has tested it. Nice to dream though!
In case you missed my edit. Note my follow up on HIV drugs too. I had hopes for those.
Monday night, Evercore ISI analyst Umer Raffat distributed an abstract of an unpublished Chinese trial of hydroxychloroquine in patients with mild Covid-19 that appears to have had disappointing results. According to Raffat, the study found that 87% of patients on hydroxychloroquine experienced virological clearance by day 7, compared with 93% of patients in the control arm.
This should be a last resort, it is very likely to negatively affect your credit score
Can they get mortgage freezes etc?
If all workers were getting the 80% too then yeah, that’s fair I guess. But they aren’t. It’s down to the employer and unfortunately those in the lowest paid jobs won’t get it.
And it is a wrong theory. Less than 15% of people tested in the UK are tested as positive. Bear in mind, a lot of them actually are sick, which is why they are getting tested in the first place. This ratio should have been closer to 0.5 (at least in the last few days).
Probably some junior PhD student trying to be cool and coming with a breakthrough theory.
Could be. The reason I'm interested in the idea is that there was a flu-like illness going around here earlier in the year and now, looking back, I can't help but remember how many people had severe coughs. Purely anecdotal and likely just a paranoid, biased opinion, of course.
Just a quick question about that bolded bit - if somebody had it in, say, January and got over it with few to no symptoms, would they still be able to test positive for it in March?
it seems ridiculous that it should affect your score. talk about kicking people when they're down.
I land at Heathrow at 7am Thursday.
Been in Asia for 2 months so feel like im
Entering a new world!
What’s the most risk free way of getting home and what hygiene precautions should i take during that journey?
Been in Asia for 2 months so feel like im
Entering a new world!
What’s the most risk free way of getting home and what hygiene precautions should i take during that journey?
Yep, both this and the one you posted in anti-virals look really bad. If confirmed than these are terrible news. The new drugs won't be ready for a long time (and after that time we might have a vaccine so they won't be too much needed), so the hope was that one of these old drugs might somehow do something here. It was a faint hope though, no reason why a malaria drug (which fights a parasite) should work for a novel virus.
How does that work in slums or those very small 2 room homes built close together and where women wash cloths And other domestic tasks on front pavement ?
Mortgage freezes will likely negatively affect their credit score, but yes in theory they could, if their lender allows it.
Why would any employer not apply for the 80% from the government? They don't exactly have to do a lot for it, and get to keep staff on, most of which will be happy with the 80%
Horse? Hard to know really, getting a friend to meet you would be best tbh. Otherwise you'll have to risk a taxi.
It really is ridiculous, but essentially you're asking your mortgage lender to give you a break because you can't afford it, the systems are automatic after that.
Hopefully someone will put something in place to protect against this
Probably one of the doctors @Arruda @Pogue Mahone might be able to reply to this.
My best (totally uninformed) guess is that there should be tests that detect it, but no idea if that happens for normal tests. Assuming that tests detect the antibodies, then yes. For example, you can get a test to see if you have a certain vaccine that you might have got decades ago. If on the other hand, the test checks only for the virus, probably no.
France deaths 1100, +240
22300 cases +2444
Apparently France will be increasing testing soon.
22300 cases +2444
Apparently France will be increasing testing soon.
Apparently mortgage freezes won’t be a direct mark on your credit report however the months without any payments are likely to be picked up by the system as part of a continuity report.
You're right. Great advice.