Discussion > Covid 19 stuff
Jul 10, 2020 at 2:29 PM Phil Clarke
Good quality trials are normally swerved by Climate Science and Climate Scientists. Do you know what they are?
golf charlie
https://fullfact.org/health/covid-19-hydroxychloroquine-chloroquine-treatment/
Phil Clarke
Jul 10, 2020 at 6:18 PM Phil Clarke
Chloroquine still more reliable than Climate Science
golf charlie
So all we can say is that these results are the views of the 6,227 doctors who did the survey, not doctors in general
Using climate math...
That looks well over 97% to me.
clipe
Good quality trials are normally swerved by Climate Science and Climate Scientists. Do you know what they are?
Well I think so…..
If it has been rejected for publication and is posted only at the science-denying site WattsupWithThat, it is probably not a good quality trial.
it was submitted to medrxiv.org on June 30 (MEDRXIV/2020/143800). It was rejected today, on July 4: “We regret to inform you that your manuscript will not be posted.
If it is, in fact, a review of opinion polls, as opposed to a randomised, double-blind study, it is probably not a good quality trial.
If the authors conflate results from several different surveys, it is probably not a good quality trial.
Although the surveys posed different questions to different audiences, the results were congruent
Internet search engines tailor their results based on a number of factors, including sponsorship and user profiling. Thus any 'research' that uses them is basically incapable of being reproduced. Any study that relies on Google or Bing etc is probably not a good quality trial.
Surveys or polls of physicians were sought, using multiple search engines (DuckDuckGo, Bing, Google, Yandex), searching for ‘physician survey hydroxychloroquine’, ‘doctors survey hydroxychloroquine’, and similar combinations of keywords
If the authors have to lie about their results, it is probably not a good quality trial.
85% of the globally surveyed physicians recognized HCQ as at least partially effective in treating COVID-19, according to Sermo W3.
While these drugs were favoured more than any other option, it was only 37% of over around 2,000 doctors involved in treatment who considered them to be “most effective”.Also, that doesn’t necessarily mean these doctors considered the drug to be more effective than the other options. Doctors were allowed to choose more than one option when asked what they thought were the most effective treatments. While 37% picked chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine, the majority of these doctors also picked at least one other drug too.
If it cherry-picks old data and ignores more recent results, it probably is not a a good quality trial. Sermo publish a weekly summary, so rather than go all the way back to April, we can examine more up to date evidence:
Globally, there has been a consistent decline in hydroxychloroquine usage (61% to 34%) and a steady increase in remdesivir usage (15% to 30%), yet many physicians feel neither drug is “highly effective” in treating COVID-19.
Source
You're welcome.
Phil Clarke
"If the authors have to lie about their results, it is probably not a good quality trial."
"If it cherry-picks old data and ignores more recent results, it probably is not a a good quality trial"
Jul 11, 2020 at 1:09 AM Phil Clarke
Hydroxychloroquine still more reliable than Hockey Teamsters and 97% of Climate Science
golf charlie
fred
That is pretty odd ...
A quick Twitter search seems to indicate some rather nonsensical testing returns, scratch "some" - a lot of weird numbers.
CDC's handling of statistical reporting is attracting attention as well....
tomo
Corona - in Under 6 Minutes
https://youtu.be/IRlPPzydSyM
fred
https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/everyone-wore-masks-during-the-1918-flu-pandemic-they-were-useless/
tomo
tomo:
https://order-order.com/2020/07/15/government-considering-compulsory-face-mask-in-all-public-spaces/
"In news that is certain to anger the likes of Sir Desmond Swayne, the Government is supposedly considering new proposals that would see face masks encouraged in all public places – including offices. Does the House of Commons count as an office?"
golf charlie
punters are masked, workers not obliged to be...
- and more.
It all looks like post facto faffing and jockeying for position - the lack of transparency and vehemence of delivery makes me suspicious that there is some unpleasantness elsewhere that some people are seeking to distract from.
I saw something yesterday about a reduction in heart attacks and wondered how well that would stand up to scrutiny, remembering the claimed reduction of 25% that NHS Scotland claimed for the first year of the smoking ban north of the border.
The numbers seem to be continually repurposed and tortured to fit a narrative. "Who to believe" should not sensibly be on the menu - but damn it - it is....
tomo
tomo
President Trump expressed optimism based on studies in France and China, and the media freaked out. The president’s political opposition would go on to cling to any proof the drug would not work and suppress any information that it would. This politicization culminated in the horrific study published by Lancet that the publication quietly retracted.However, the damage was already done. The World Health Organization suspended trials immediately after the study published in Lancet. Switzerland, which had been using the treatment, prohibited the use of the drug in COVID-19 shortly after that on May 27th. The retraction was so stealth that the ban was not lifted in Switzerland until June 11th.
This window allowed French researchers to analyze what happened in the entire population of COVID-19 patients during the ban. They used the case fatality rate (CFR) as the measure observed. The graph is stunning
clipe
clipe
Jul 16, 2020 at 10:26 PM clipe
Phil Clarke and the Hockey Teamsters wrong on medical science, evidence, reporting, statistics, honesty etc again. Their conclusions obviously based on the experience gained in Climate Science.
golf charlie
are PHE stacking the Covid-19 stats / have their foot on the scales?
tomo
Karel Sikora is stirring it wrt to the accounting of Covid-19 fatalities
tomo
https://order-order.com/2020/07/20/public-health-england-chief-on-his-postage-stamp-public-health-credentials/
fred
Disposable medical masks (also known as surgical masks) are loose-fitting devices that were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect accidental contamination of patient wounds, and to protect the wearer against splashes or sprays of bodily fluids (36). There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure. Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/07/21/update-move-going-slowly-but-near-complete/#comment-3037861
clipe
clipe
To the Editor: We read with interest the meta-analysis conducted by Xiao et al. (1) that found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of surgical masks in the community, based on 10 randomized controlled trials. Nevertheless, mechanistic studies found that surgical masks could prevent transmission of human coronavirus and influenza virus infections if worn by infected persons (2). The authors pointed out the limitations of their study: small sample size and suboptimal adherence in the mask-wearer group
From <https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/8/20-1498_article#r2>
.
In this issue of JAMA, Wang et al present evidence that universal masking of health care workers (HCWs) and patients can help reduce transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections
From <https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2768532>
Both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization now recommend cloth masks for the general public, but earlier in the pandemic, both organizations recommended just the opposite. These shifting guidelines may have sowed confusion among the public about the utility of masks.
But health experts say the evidence is clear that masks can help prevent the spread of COVID-19 and that the more people wearing masks, the better.
From <https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-confused-about-masks-heres-science-behind-how-face-masks-prevent>
We identified seasonal human coronaviruses, influenza viruses and rhinoviruses in exhaled breath and coughs of children and adults with acute respiratory illness. Surgical face masks significantly reduced detection of influenza virus RNA in respiratory droplets and coronavirus RNA in aerosols, with a trend toward reduced detection of coronavirus RNA in respiratory droplets. Our results indicate that surgical face masks could prevent transmission of human coronaviruses and influenza viruses from symptomatic individuals.
From <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2>
Phil Clarke
https://scienceornot.net/2012/10/23/single-study-syndrome-clutching-at-convenient-confirmation/
Phil Clarke
Which part of 'good quality trials' is giving you the problem? ;-)