Chloroquine trials - Printable Version

Chloroquine trials - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: Emergency (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-11.html)
+--- Forum: Covid-19 (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Chloroquine trials (/thread-19212.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

RE: Chloroquine trials - burger - 04-06-2020

(04-06-2020, 08:26 AM)BostonCard Wrote: But this seems like a textbook example of motivated reasoning.

Heh, in future psychology textbooks, all examples of motivated reasoning will come from 2020. It goes way beyoned just trump/navarro and cholorquine. Something I constantly see on social media is people asking if a person (usually a young person) who died from covid-19 had complicating factors. People do not want to accept the fact that this virus occasionally kills young and/or healthy people. So, people try to "other" the deaths to make themselves feel safer.

I think this has actually done a lot of damage because it's easier for young/healthy people to ignore the lockdown when they don't think they are at risk. We would probably be doing better at lowering R if people were a little more scared.

RE: Chloroquine trials - Genuine Realist - 04-06-2020

(04-06-2020, 09:24 AM)burger Wrote:
(04-06-2020, 08:26 AM)BostonCard Wrote: But this seems like a textbook example of motivated reasoning.

Heh, in future psychology textbooks, all examples of motivated reasoning will come from 2020. It goes way beyoned just trump/navarro and cholorquine. Something I constantly see on social media is people asking if a person (usually a young person) who died from covid-19 had complicating factors. People do not want to accept the fact that this virus occasionally kills young and/or healthy people. So, people try to "other" the deaths to make themselves feel safer.

I think this has actually done a lot of damage because it's easier for young/healthy people to ignore the lockdown when they don't think they are at risk. We would probably be doing better at lowering R if people were a little more scared.

Is 'artisanal data' a term of art?

RE: Chloroquine trials - BostonCard - 04-06-2020

(04-06-2020, 09:24 AM)burger Wrote: I think this has actually done a lot of damage because it's easier for young/healthy people to ignore the lockdown when they don't think they are at risk. We would probably be doing better at lowering R if people were a little more scared.

That's why I think that the rationale should not be to "go on lockdown to protect yourself", but rather "go on lockdown to protect your parents, grandparents, healthcare workers, and even strangers down the chain. If you can stop the chain of transmission, you can save the lives of vulnerable people".

BC

RE: Chloroquine trials - Mick - 04-06-2020

(04-06-2020, 09:24 AM)burger Wrote:
(04-06-2020, 08:26 AM)BostonCard Wrote: But this seems like a textbook example of motivated reasoning.

Heh, in future psychology textbooks, all examples of motivated reasoning will come from 2020. It goes way beyoned just trump/navarro and cholorquine. Something I constantly see on social media is people asking if a person (usually a young person) who died from covid-19 had complicating factors. People do not want to accept the fact that this virus occasionally kills young and/or healthy people. So, people try to "other" the deaths to make themselves feel safer.

I think this has actually done a lot of damage because it's easier for young/healthy people to ignore the lockdown when they don't think they are at risk. We would probably be doing better at lowering R if people were a little more scared.

Particularly given that 50% of those who test positive in Iceland are asymptomatic. Makes me wonder about the number of infected people who are walking around with no symptoms and infecting people.

RE: Chloroquine trials - dabigv13 - 04-06-2020

I don't think that number is correct. Many of those patients are likely presymptomatic, not asymptomatic. But yes what makes this disease so difficult to control is the high transmission when not presently symptomatic.

RE: Chloroquine trials - Mick - 04-06-2020

(04-06-2020, 04:47 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: I don't think that number is correct. Many of those patients are likely presymptomatic, not asymptomatic. But yes what makes this disease so difficult to control is the high transmission when not presently symptomatic.

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2020/04/iceland-tests-anyone-for-coronavirus-shows-significant-amount-are-asymptomatic.html

RE: Chloroquine trials - dabigv13 - 04-06-2020

Right. From what I can tell, that just means they weren't symptomatic when they took the test. They never called those people a week later to see if they were having symptoms.

Lots of the headlines in general press have been misleading. Another big one was the "virus lives on the cruise ships for two weeks" headlines, when only non replicating viral RNA was found.

RE: Chloroquine trials - akiddoc - 04-07-2020

(04-06-2020, 04:53 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: Right. From what I can tell, that just means they weren't symptomatic when they took the test. They never called those people a week later to see if they were having symptoms.

Lots of the headlines in general press have been misleading. Another big one was the "virus lives on the cruise ships for two weeks" headlines, when only non replicating viral RNA was found.

True. But with many common viruses, there is a sizable group with little to no symptoms. It's amazing how many people test positive for EBV IgG with really high titers, negative IgM, and never knew they were sick.

RE: Chloroquine trials - BostonCard - 04-07-2020

(04-07-2020, 01:51 AM)akiddoc Wrote:
(04-06-2020, 04:53 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: Right. From what I can tell, that just means they weren't symptomatic when they took the test. They never called those people a week later to see if they were having symptoms.

Lots of the headlines in general press have been misleading. Another big one was the "virus lives on the cruise ships for two weeks" headlines, when only non replicating viral RNA was found.

True. But with many common viruses, there is a sizable group with little to no symptoms. It's amazing how many people test positive for EBV IgG with really high titers, negative IgM, and never knew they were sick.

While I agree, it is also possible that they had some nonspecific symptoms that they attributed to the flu when what they really had was EBV. Likewise, it is possible that some individuals with coronavirus have nonspecific symptoms like a sore throat or a cough that they don't attribute to coronavirus, and then in a few months, they will have positive IgG.

The key issue would be identifying people pre-symptomatically and then following them prospectively to see if they develop symptoms. Of course, if you tell someone "you are positive for Covid-19", they might develop symptoms just because they now know (sort of like a placebo effect).

BC

RE: Chloroquine trials - fullmetal - 04-08-2020

(04-06-2020, 09:24 AM)burger Wrote: I think this has actually done a lot of damage because it's easier for young/healthy people to ignore the lockdown when they don't think they are at risk. We would probably be doing better at lowering R if people were a little more scared.

This is why I am not vocally opposed to overreaction -- the hoarding, the toilet paper hoarding, etc....whatever motivates the most number of people to stay indoors is fine with me. We know the smart people are going to stay indoors, but this is a group project, and we have to get as many people on board as possible...which means finding ways to alter the behavior of the not-so-wise.

RE: Chloroquine trials - oldalum - 04-09-2020

if I can return to the topic of the thread for a moment, article talking about serious problems with the original chloroquine study from France:
article

RE: Chloroquine trials - 2006alum - 04-10-2020

More on Hydroxychloroquine trials in France:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/business/status/1248699451243454466?s=20[/tweet]

Quote:France has recorded about 100 health incidents and four deaths linked to experimental drugs for coronavirus patients since March 27, the national drug-safety agency ANSM said in a statement on Friday. Three other patients had to be revived.

RE: Chloroquine trials - 2006alum - 04-12-2020

My sense is that the "hydroxychloroquine is a miracle drug" rhetoric has abated even among some of its greatest initial proponents, but for those still in doubt, here's an interesting thread from a frontline physician who's been treating COVID-19 patients for the past few weeks. One of the interesting things he mentions elsewhere in the thread, which I haven't seen reported much elsewhere, is the high rate of renal failure in patients who had no pre-existing condition, and how that has been one of the most difficult "symptoms" to manage.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/sanjum/status/1249374589920165889?s=20[/tweet]

RE: Chloroquine trials - dabigv13 - 04-12-2020

Here's the thing, for the vast majority of people with this disease, they will get better with or without treatment. So if someone takes the miracle cure, and get better, they may very assume it was the miracle cure recommended by their great leader they trust.

RE: Chloroquine trials - 2006alum - 04-12-2020

(04-12-2020, 07:37 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: Here's the thing, for the vast majority of people with this disease, they will get better with or without treatment. So if someone takes the miracle cure, and get better, they may very assume it was the miracle cure recommended by their great leader they trust.

Others will take anything with the name "chloroquine" in the ingredient list and wind up in the ER:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/DoctorYasmin/status/1242269043144310785?s=20[/tweet]

Here's the thing: that's why, until recently, our national leadership followed scientific best practices, including the results of controlled drug trials, rather than whatever Fox & Friends happens to have peddled on any given morning...

RE: Chloroquine trials - dabigv13 - 04-12-2020

Yeah I agree it's terrible for any government official to be pushing unfounded claims particularly if they can be harmful. I'm just saying it may pay off for the guy, perhaps in several ways.

RE: Chloroquine trials - cardcrimson - 04-12-2020

(04-12-2020, 07:37 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: Here's the thing, for the vast majority of people with this disease, they will get better with or without treatment. So if someone takes the miracle cure, and get better, they may very assume it was the miracle cure recommended by their great leader they trust.

So, for the vast majority they need not worry about this as they will get better with or without treatment. Great to know. Then why on earth did we crater the economy?

RE: Chloroquine trials - dabigv13 - 04-12-2020

Spanish Flu only killed 2 to 3% of its victims, but was still one of the worst pandemics in history. If this kills 1% of the US population, which it could if we did nothing, that is 3 million, or approximately 2.5 times as many Americans died in the Civil War, WW1, WW2, and Vietnam put together.

RE: Chloroquine trials - 2006alum - 04-12-2020

(04-12-2020, 09:49 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: Spanish Flu only killed 2 to 3% of its victims, but was still one of the worst pandemics in history. If this kills 1% of the US population, which it could if we did nothing, that is 3 million, or approximately 2.5 times as many Americans died in the Civil War, WW1, WW2, and Vietnam put together.

RE: Chloroquine trials - dabigv13 - 04-12-2020

I don't think the people on here always worrying about the economy are trolling. I just think the possibility of hundreds of thousands or more dying in a span of months is too abstract to process. I hope that's what it is.