On Lockdown

This area is for the discussion of what's new, what's on your mind, and general photographic topics. A place to meet, make comments on this site, and get the latest community news.

Moderators: Pau, rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S.

ray_parkhurst
Posts: 2752
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by ray_parkhurst »

Lou Jost wrote: Ray, I am just looking at the literature. I don't have a party. On the other hand I think you are inclined to give undue weight to claims that support your libertarian positions.
My politics have nothing to do with this. I just want to know the truth, Lou. I've been going along with the shutdown and the social distancing and the mask wearing and the hand washing like a good soldier, thinking that I'm doing the right thing, even though it mostly feels wrong.
There are many studies, including very recent ones, about the contagiousness of non-symptomatic persons. A nice review is here: https://www.health.com/condition/infect ... oronavirus.

It seems to be the scientific consensus that people who do not show symptoms are important vectors of the disease. There is argument about the exact percentage. But the findings of contact tracing confirm that asymptomatic persons are contagious.
Lou...you don't really think that what you linked to is "science" or "literature", do you? I see the phrases:

"Based on current assumptions"

"seems to be more prevalent than previously imagined"

"An early instance of possible asymptomatic spread"

"may count for a significant amount"

"who reportedly spread the virus"

"The sequence of events suggests that the coronavirus may have been transmitted by the asymptomatic carrier"

"We used outbreak data from clusters in Singapore and Tianjin,China to estimate the generation interval from symptom onset data whileacknowledging uncertainty about the incubation period distribution and theunderlying transmission network."

"Estimating generation and serial interval distributions from outbreak
data requires careful investigation of the underlying transmission network."

Even the title of the Dutch paper leaves me speechless:

"Transmission interval estimates suggest pre-symptomatic spread of COVID-19"

There is NO SCIENCE in these papers, just a bunch of researchers looking at incomplete data and drawing likely incorrect conclusions from it. At best what they have are hypotheses.

Lou Jost
Posts: 4588
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

The article I linked to was a convienent source of many links to the scientific literature. Not all of them are strong, sure. But some are. The contact tracing accounts are especially strong and prove the claims that asymptomatic and presymptomatic carriers are contagious. What we don't know is the percentage of new cases caused by these. But it is likely to be significant.
Self-quarantine on temperature and coughs. No need for masks or physical distancing, since asymptomatic folks don't effectively transmit the virus.
I don't see how you can defend this statement based on science. Even if asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic carriers were not effective transmitters, it is human nature (especially in the US) to not self-quarantine at the first sign of trouble, especially if this means a substantial loss of income. This likely behavior puts everyone else at risk. Of course we could debate the balance point between your right to work versus my right to be safe. That's a subjective question.

ray_parkhurst
Posts: 2752
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by ray_parkhurst »

Lou Jost wrote:The article I linked to was a convienent source of many links to the scientific literature. Not all of them are strong, sure. But some are. The contact tracing accounts are especially strong and prove the claims that asymptomatic and presymptomatic carriers are contagious. What we don't know is the percentage of new cases caused by these. But it is likely to be significant.
Self-quarantine on temperature and coughs. No need for masks or physical distancing, since asymptomatic folks don't effectively transmit the virus.
I don't see how you can defend this statement based on science. Even if asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic carriers were not effective transmitters, it is human nature (especially in the US) to not self-quarantine at the first sign of trouble, especially if this means a substantial loss of income. This likely behavior puts everyone else at risk. Of course we could debate the balance point between your right to work versus my right to be safe. That's a subjective question.
That statement was based on the WHO report that asymptomatic carriers "very rarely" transmit the disease. It that is true, which I would need to verify by reviewing the studies the WHO person was referring to, then I would stand by that statement from scientific perspective. It was indeed a surprise to me, almost as much as the retraction 24 hours later! Honestly I expect that pre-symptomatic folks, ie folks who have been infected with SARS-2 and will eventually develop COVID-19, would indeed be infectious as their viral load grows during incubation. How infectious, who knows? Folks who have been infected, but are not susceptible to developing COVID-19 for whatever reason, I'd expect to be far less infectious. Perhaps those are the folks the studies referred to? I'm not sure.

Regarding self-quarantine, my plan actually (and initially non-intuitively) requires that the lockdowns be eliminated, and folks allowed back to work and to shop, but with the addition of entry checks for temperature and coughs. People with COVID-19 cough, many uncontrollably, and they have fevers, so it becomes quickly obvious who has symptoms. Being denied entry to your workplace, and being told by your company to go home and quarantine until your cough and fever are gone, is a powerful tool for suppressing the virus. Being denied entry by a grocery store, and having the crowd of folks around you shirk away in fear, is nearly as powerful.

The above is not the world I want, but if it allows the healthy to go back to being productive, it may be worth it.

enricosavazzi
Posts: 1284
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 2:41 pm
Location: Borgholm, Sweden
Contact:

Post by enricosavazzi »

enricosavazzi wrote:...
In Sweden it is simply impossible for a private person to get tested by asking for it.
...
With reference to my earlier post, it is possible from today for private persons in Sweden to have a test for antibodies for SARS-CoV-2 (i.e. evidence that one has had Covid-19 and has recovered). The tests are given at some pharmacies (not medical facilities), I don't know how many places and whether available throughout Sweden. Cost is around 80 USD not refundable by public health insurance. Waiting time around 10 minutes.

Tests for the virus (i.e. active infection) are given only to persons displaying symptoms, after initial medical screening at hospitals.
--ES

Lou Jost
Posts: 4588
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

Ray, here's another example of bad WHO analysis. Public officials are often poor evaluators of the literature, and the scientific literature itself is exceptionally dirty, as you have noted:

"The World Health Organization and a number of national governments have changed their Covid-19 policies and treatments on the basis of flawed data from a little-known US healthcare analytics company, also calling into question the integrity of key studies published in some of the world’s most prestigious medical journals."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... hloroquine

ray_parkhurst
Posts: 2752
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by ray_parkhurst »

Lou Jost wrote:Ray, here's another example of bad WHO analysis. Public officials are often poor evaluators of the literature, and the scientific literature itself is exceptionally dirty, as you have noted:

"The World Health Organization and a number of national governments have changed their Covid-19 policies and treatments on the basis of flawed data from a little-known US healthcare analytics company, also calling into question the integrity of key studies published in some of the world’s most prestigious medical journals."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... hloroquine
Yeah, this is the "Lancetgate" I mentioned earlier. It's amazing how far some folks will go to discredit Trump. Problem is, HCQ is an excellent Zinc-uptake enabler, and Zinc is an excellent Coronavirus replication suppressor. How many thousands, or tens of thousands, of people would have been saved if HCQ+Zinc protocol had been broadly applied when Trump said it looked promising?

Lou Jost
Posts: 4588
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

That's a bizarre conclusion Ray. There are many other studies. The largest ones show no effect. The original pro-cloroquin study was also done by a very shady character.

ray_parkhurst
Posts: 2752
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by ray_parkhurst »

Lou Jost wrote:That's a bizarre conclusion Ray. There are many other studies. The largest ones show no effect. The original pro-cloroquin study was also done by a very shady character.
I have not heard of a study where Zinc was included in the protocol. I did hear of a study where Zinc was intentionally not included, and doses were intentionally increased to more than double the maximum recommendation, and the death rate was higher than without the HCQ. IMO the people running that study should be up on murder charges.

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 21036
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

This discussion has gotten substantially out of hand and out of place for photomacrography.net.

I suggest that everybody steps back and takes several deep breaths, before Admin simply locks the thread and keeps it that way.

--Rik

Smokedaddy
Posts: 1710
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 10:16 am
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Contact:

Post by Smokedaddy »

:arrow:
Last edited by Smokedaddy on Fri Jun 12, 2020 8:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Lou Jost
Posts: 4588
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

I'm fine with closing this discussion. I have a problem leaving what I regard as potentially life-threatening misinformation unanswered. Ray probably has the same feeling about what he considers to be livelihood-threatening misinformation promoted by me.

I'd rather be postng about photography.
Last edited by Lou Jost on Thu Jun 11, 2020 9:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

ray_parkhurst
Posts: 2752
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by ray_parkhurst »

Lou Jost wrote:I'm fine with closing this discussion. I have a problem leaving what I regard as potentially life-threatening info unanswered. Ray probably has the same feeling about what he considers to be livelihood-threatening misinformation promoted by me.

I'd rather be postng about photography.
Well, since this is my thread, I'm not all that interested in seeing it closed. I agree that politics and religion, as Smokedaddy has stated, really needs to be kept out of these discussions, and I think we've all tried to do that. I expect my opinion about culpability for scientists was what Rik had issue with.

The HCQ issue is rife with political overtones but I think it can be discussed rationally. Lou, can you give refs for the studies you feel best represent its (in)effectiveness? I'd hope that any clinical trials done were well thought out and include Zinc in the protocol, otherwise they are not that useful. HCQ is only a sort of catalyst, useless on its own for the current problem or even potentially dangerous in too large a dose.

I'm interested also in the way the shutdowns are opening back up around the world, and if a significant second wave is going to happen. Here in CA businesses are supposed to open back up tomorrow, with masks and SD of course, so that will be interesting to watch. It's all complicated by the ongoing turmoil, especially in LA. The Bay Area where I live has been quite tame from both virus and social unrest perspective (knock on wood), but LA is a hotspot for both. We were planning a trip south but are not sure when it will be safe to go. Maybe next month, or maybe I'll just wait until the Redondo Beach Electronics Swap opens up again, and that will be my trigger.

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 21036
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

what Rik had issue with
Many years ago, a very wise colleague gave me valuable counsel: "Never assume malevolence when simple incompetence will suffice."

Without pointing fingers, let me just say that this thread has occasionally strayed much too far in the direction of assuming malevolence.

--Rik

Lou Jost
Posts: 4588
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

I'd hope that any clinical trials done were well thought out and include Zinc in the protocol, otherwise they are not that useful. HCQ is only a sort of catalyst, useless on its own for the current problem or even potentially dangerous in too large a dose.
Ray, the claim of the original French and Chinese studies that were responsible for the HCQ craze just tested HCQ, in some cases combined with azithromycin. No zinc as far as I can tell. HCQ by itself or with azithromycin was claimed to be effective.

Now as we discuss attempts to confirm or disconform these early (and in the French case, highly problematic) studies claiming that HCQ is beneficial, you have changed the original claim, shifting the goalposts. You now say that of course HCQ won't work when tested, because the testers didn't add this new ingredient they should have used. Now you might very well be right that zinc makes HCQ work, and there are good theoretical reasons for thinking that it might, but the current studies give mixed results. We might as well just wait and see. But you seem to agree with me that the original claim that HCQ by itself was effective is false.

I will stop here. There are many current large clinical trails of HCQ going on now (see list here: https://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script ... 0000100501). Some are also studying added zinc. We'll soon know the answer, and it could go either way. And if the conclusion is negative, maybe there really are even more additional extra ingredients that would change the negative results. I just would note that there is no end to this procedure. If the new results are negative, you can always claim that some new ingredient should have been added.

ray_parkhurst
Posts: 2752
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by ray_parkhurst »

Lou Jost wrote:
I'd hope that any clinical trials done were well thought out and include Zinc in the protocol, otherwise they are not that useful. HCQ is only a sort of catalyst, useless on its own for the current problem or even potentially dangerous in too large a dose.
Now as we discuss attempts to confirm or disconform these early (and in the French case, highly problematic) studies claiming that HCQ is beneficial, you have changed the original claim, shifting the goalposts. You now say that of course HCQ won't work when tested, because the testers didn't add this new ingredient they should have used. Now you might very well be right that zinc makes HCQ work, and there are good theoretical reasons for thinking that it might, but the current studies give mixed results. We might as well just wait and see. But you seem to agree with me that the original claim that HCQ by itself was effective is false.
Yes, I believe the reason HCQ may have worked on its own is if the subjects just happened to have sufficient Zinc in serum but were not absorbing it into the cells. That is a variable that IMO should have been included in any study but was not. I agree that HCQ on its own is probably not useful against COVID-19 either as a prophylactic or treatment.

Locked Previous topicNext topic