MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun May 03, 2020 12:05 pm
ok, very different answer from PB's.
What YOU are saying is that alarmists have been getting it wrong since Nostradamus...probably earlier.
Chicken Little dilemma.
I'm willing to engage on those grounds.
Indeed, predictions of the future need to be examined, and re-examined. Again and again.
But avoidance of Chicken Little needn't mean reverting to Ostrich behavior.
Like I said, this issue of the political partisanship, with Dems thinking they are allied with science and facts and R's thinking that scientists and experts have little or no value, did NOT start with Trump. But that divide has clearly heightened in the past 4 years.
And clearly there's never been a President in the modern age so prone to believe/promote blatant false hoods and conspiracy theories, and so prone to reject science and expertise, favoring his own self-annointed "genius".
In this crisis, that matters.
But climate change supposedly is settled science. If you don't believe it you're a flat earther.
Parts of it absolutely are. Parts are not as "settled" in the sense that some predictions have error bars around them. And the layman when confronted with the noise the anti-science community puts out has a hard time understanding the difference. That community has certainly been able to get people not well versed in science to question the issue.
But the science says humans, because of their use of certain fuels, have raised the level of CO2 and other chemicals into the atmosphere that have raised the concentration to a point where the effects on temperature are clear and convincing. And to continue to behave in the same way has demonstrable and predictable consequences - some of which are already seen.
The ultimate question is - confronted with a problem (like what happened with the ozone layer) - are we going to do something about it? The more quickly and comprehensively we act the less of a problem we will have. The longer we wait - the worse the problem.
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun May 03, 2020 12:05 pm
ok, very different answer from PB's.
What YOU are saying is that alarmists have been getting it wrong since Nostradamus...probably earlier.
Chicken Little dilemma.
I'm willing to engage on those grounds.
Indeed, predictions of the future need to be examined, and re-examined. Again and again.
But avoidance of Chicken Little needn't mean reverting to Ostrich behavior.
Like I said, this issue of the political partisanship, with Dems thinking they are allied with science and facts and R's thinking that scientists and experts have little or no value, did NOT start with Trump. But that divide has clearly heightened in the past 4 years.
And clearly there's never been a President in the modern age so prone to believe/promote blatant false hoods and conspiracy theories, and so prone to reject science and expertise, favoring his own self-annointed "genius".
In this crisis, that matters.
But climate change supposedly is settled science. If you don't believe it you're a flat earther.
What does your colleagues in the science department argue? Do they argue that the approach to t he science around climate change is not valid? Do you teach any inter-disciplinary courses? Is your position based on belief?
Re: All things Chinese CoronaVirus
Posted: Sun May 03, 2020 12:43 pm
by MDlaxfan76
Peter Brown wrote: ↑Sun May 03, 2020 11:45 am
Much more importantly MD, how did the CDC just reduce COVID deaths by 50%
I am genuinely curious about this. Yesterday it was 62,000; today 37,000.
Anyone explain?
PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS!!!!!!
I don't follow the CDC reporting in real time, so I have no idea whether they changed something or not.
But they're quite clear that they're not real time and don't include certain types of reporting.
They don't claim either up to date or complete, all subject to change.
I went down to the notes to see if I could learn more:
How it works
The National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) uses incoming data from death certificates to produce provisional COVID-19 death counts. These include deaths occurring within the 50 states and the District of Columbia. COVID-19 deaths are identified using a new ICD–10 code. When COVID-19 is reported as a cause of death – or when it is listed as a “probable” or “presumed” cause — the death is coded as U07.1. This can include cases with or without laboratory confirmation.
Why these numbers are different
Provisional death counts may not match counts from other sources, such as media reports or numbers from county health departments. Our counts often track 1–2 weeks behind other data for a number of reasons: Death certificates take time to be completed. There are many steps involved in completing and submitting a death certificate. Waiting for test results can create additional delays. States report at different rates. Currently, 63% of all U.S. deaths are reported within 10 days of the date of death, but there is significant variation among jurisdictions. It takes extra time to code COVID-19 deaths. While 80% of deaths are electronically processed and coded by NCHS within minutes, most deaths from COVID-19 must be coded manually, which takes an average of 7 days. Other reporting systems use different definitions or methods for counting deaths.
Things to know about the data
Provisional counts are not final and are subject to change. Counts from previous weeks are continually revised as additional records are received and processed. Provisional data are not yet complete. Counts will not include all deaths that occurred during a given time period, especially for more recent periods. However, we can estimate how complete our numbers are by looking at the average number of deaths reported in previous years. Death counts should not be compared across jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions report deaths on a daily basis, while others report deaths weekly or monthly. In addition, vital record reporting may also be affected or delayed by COVID-19 related response activities.
For more detailed technical information, visit the Provisional Death Counts for Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Technical Notes page.
I think you can use the worldometer data as pretty darn close to 'real-time' and accurate in so far as it includes what is believed to be accurate, as reported in. It too is subject to not being complete as it's widely understood that there are quite a lot of deaths highly likely caused by the virus but not confirmed as such. However, some jurisdictions like NYC are attempting to include some of these as well. They do a quite good job of detailing their sources of data and the differences between various sources, both here in the US and worldwide.
It appears to me to be the most consistently on top of the #'s. the Hopkins site typically catches up 24-48 hours later in confirmation.
Re: All things Chinese CoronaVirus
Posted: Sun May 03, 2020 12:56 pm
by MDlaxfan76
Of course, that begs the question as to why the CDC doesn't provide a comparable view as say the Hopkins data.
I'm not sure, but I do hear that CDC is badly underfunded, with most energies in other areas, not something like this. We're grossly underfunded in a bunch of areas of systemic public health research and mitigation. Don't get me started...
The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health however receives a bunch of federal money specifically to work on such issues, including infectious disease spread, so stood their capabilities up faster because they'd already built a set of tools for epidemiology tracking.
I am genuinely curious about this. Yesterday it was 62,000; today 37,000.
Anyone explain?
PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS!!!!!!
Because that site cannot be trusted to put out accurate numbers until long after the fact. And the RW noise machine is filled with tremendously stupid people who don't bother to actually read the disclaimers and understand that you cannot trust the numbers to be current.
Someone went in and apparently "cleaned up" the site, and maybe for political purposes. It is clear that this is nonsense, as far as realistic counts.
It is pretty obvious that the Johns Hopkins site and the worldometer site are far better in keeping their numbers current, and several sites including TPM and NYT have had articles working on the excess/missed CV deaths. (Real US death toll at this point is about 100K).
I will give you this - at least you asked the question.
Re: All things Chinese CoronaVirus
Posted: Sun May 03, 2020 1:41 pm
by a fan
6ftstick wrote: ↑Sun May 03, 2020 11:46 am5. In 1970, Sen. Gaylord Nelson, D-Wisc., – often considered the “father of Earth Day” – cited the secretary of the Smithsonian, who “believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
And what did Nixon do in response to this news? What did that mean ol' Nixon (R) do to keep that from happening?
You're acting like America didn't make MASSIVE changes to our manufacturing practices in response to that news.
I am genuinely curious about this. Yesterday it was 62,000; today 37,000.
Anyone explain?
PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS!!!!!!
Because that site cannot be trusted to put out accurate numbers until long after the fact. And the RW noise machine is filled with tremendously stupid people who don't bother to actually read the disclaimers and understand that you cannot trust the numbers to be current.
Someone went in and apparently "cleaned up" the site, and maybe for political purposes. It is clear that this is nonsense, as far as realistic counts.
It is pretty obvious that the Johns Hopkins site and the worldometer site are far better in keeping their numbers current, and several sites including TPM and NYT have had articles working on the excess/missed CV deaths. (Real US death toll at this point is about 100K).
I will give you this - at least you asked the question.
If you look at the CDC numbers they are only current into the week of Apr. 25, and the April 25 number showing a drop off from 10,000+ the week before to 3,000+ quite clearly indicates incomplete data. One should read with a critical eye the articles and numbers they site to carry on a meaningful discussion.
Re: All things Chinese CoronaVirus
Posted: Sun May 03, 2020 2:10 pm
by wgdsr
anyone have an idea/analysis on why michigan is doing so poorly to this point?
no ethnic or age disparity with the rest of the u.s. detroit city is/was bad but accounts for ~25% ish of the total so you could throw that out and they'd still be in bad shape.
they seem to be an outlier. if not the outlier.
Re: All things Chinese CoronaVirus
Posted: Sun May 03, 2020 3:12 pm
by youthathletics
Cool video of Blue Angles and Thunderbirds flying around MD yesterday to recognize and thank First responders of current crisis.
Re: All things COVID-19
Posted: Sun May 03, 2020 3:25 pm
by RedFromMI
wgdsr wrote: ↑Sun May 03, 2020 2:10 pm
anyone have an idea/analysis on why michigan is doing so poorly to this point?
no ethnic or age disparity with the rest of the u.s. detroit city is/was bad but accounts for ~25% ish of the total so you could throw that out and they'd still be in bad shape.
they seem to be an outlier. if not the outlier.
Michigan could have been hit harder because the virus may have already been in the community for days or weeks before the symptoms or testing.
Among the possibilities Hutton and others have mentioned for the rapid spread in Michigan:
Detroit Metropolitan Airport, which has a large international hub and flights to Wuhan, China, where the outbreak originated in December and its airport remained open until Jan. 23.
Supply lines between Detroit automakers and Wuhan, a major auto hub and home to five car manufacturers including Dongfeng Motor, one of the biggest in China. General Motors has 15 assembly plants in China with its partners, while Ford has six and Fiat Chrysler has two.
Ties between automakers, particularly FCA, and Italy, which has more than 77,000 cases and 12,000 deaths.
Michigan's March 10 presidential primary and big campaign rallies leading up to it, including one that drew 6,000 in Detroit for Bernie Sanders on March 6. In contrast, Ohio cancelled its March 17 primary.
6ftstick wrote: ↑Sun May 03, 2020 11:46 am5. In 1970, Sen. Gaylord Nelson, D-Wisc., – often considered the “father of Earth Day” – cited the secretary of the Smithsonian, who “believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
And what did Nixon do in response to this news? What did that mean ol' Nixon (R) do to keep that from happening?
You're acting like America didn't make MASSIVE changes to our manufacturing practices in response to that news.
Correct, we've made all sorts of changes to prevent catastrophes...but somehow 'anti-science' resistance became wrapped in partisanship and reasonable discourse and non-partisan responses became harder and harder.
Was it 'evolution' and the shift of southern white evangelicals to the GOP?
The battles over what educational texts should say about it?
Coinciding with abortion/choice?
That anti-science POV had been in the southern, conservative Democrat wing for decades, with northern, 'liberal' GOP being far more open to science. But Nixon's southern strategy and then particularly Reagan's southern strategy moved that voting block into the GOP. Culture wars, Moral Majority, "family values"...but a big strain was anti-science, anti-intellectual, anti-expertise...
6ftstick wrote: ↑Sun May 03, 2020 11:46 am5. In 1970, Sen. Gaylord Nelson, D-Wisc., – often considered the “father of Earth Day” – cited the secretary of the Smithsonian, who “believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
And what did Nixon do in response to this news? What did that mean ol' Nixon (R) do to keep that from happening?
You're acting like America didn't make MASSIVE changes to our manufacturing practices in response to that news.
Correct, we've made all sorts of changes to prevent catastrophes...but somehow 'anti-science' resistance became wrapped in partisanship and reasonable discourse and non-partisan responses became harder and harder.
Was it 'evolution' and the shift of southern white evangelicals to the GOP?
The battles over what educational texts should say about it?
Coinciding with abortion/choice?
That anti-science POV had been in the southern, conservative Democrat wing for decades, with northern, 'liberal' GOP being far more open to science. But Nixon's southern strategy and then particularly Reagan's southern strategy moved that voting block into the GOP. Culture wars, Moral Majority, "family values"...but a big strain was anti-science, anti-intellectual, anti-expertise...
wgdsr wrote: ↑Sun May 03, 2020 2:10 pm
anyone have an idea/analysis on why michigan is doing so poorly to this point?
no ethnic or age disparity with the rest of the u.s. detroit city is/was bad but accounts for ~25% ish of the total so you could throw that out and they'd still be in bad shape.
they seem to be an outlier. if not the outlier.
Michigan could have been hit harder because the virus may have already been in the community for days or weeks before the symptoms or testing.
Among the possibilities Hutton and others have mentioned for the rapid spread in Michigan:
Detroit Metropolitan Airport, which has a large international hub and flights to Wuhan, China, where the outbreak originated in December and its airport remained open until Jan. 23.
Supply lines between Detroit automakers and Wuhan, a major auto hub and home to five car manufacturers including Dongfeng Motor, one of the biggest in China. General Motors has 15 assembly plants in China with its partners, while Ford has six and Fiat Chrysler has two.
Ties between automakers, particularly FCA, and Italy, which has more than 77,000 cases and 12,000 deaths.
Michigan's March 10 presidential primary and big campaign rallies leading up to it, including one that drew 6,000 in Detroit for Bernie Sanders on March 6. In contrast, Ohio cancelled its March 17 primary.
By my tally -- the greater Detroit metro area accounts for approx 3500(JHU) of 4000(NPR) MI deaths.
Go to the JHU dashboard, + zoom in on the dots in the Detroit area, look at their size & click on each, then add up their component deaths sub totals.
From Detroit, W to Lansing, N to Flint, then compare to the dots in the Chicago, Boston & NYC metro areas.
Not unlike StL & B'more, where the adjoining county has as many, or more, deaths reported.
Consistent with major NE urban population centers.
wgdsr wrote: ↑Sun May 03, 2020 2:10 pm
anyone have an idea/analysis on why michigan is doing so poorly to this point?
no ethnic or age disparity with the rest of the u.s. detroit city is/was bad but accounts for ~25% ish of the total so you could throw that out and they'd still be in bad shape.
they seem to be an outlier. if not the outlier.
Michigan could have been hit harder because the virus may have already been in the community for days or weeks before the symptoms or testing.
Among the possibilities Hutton and others have mentioned for the rapid spread in Michigan:
Detroit Metropolitan Airport, which has a large international hub and flights to Wuhan, China, where the outbreak originated in December and its airport remained open until Jan. 23.
Supply lines between Detroit automakers and Wuhan, a major auto hub and home to five car manufacturers including Dongfeng Motor, one of the biggest in China. General Motors has 15 assembly plants in China with its partners, while Ford has six and Fiat Chrysler has two.
Ties between automakers, particularly FCA, and Italy, which has more than 77,000 cases and 12,000 deaths.
Michigan's March 10 presidential primary and big campaign rallies leading up to it, including one that drew 6,000 in Detroit for Bernie Sanders on March 6. In contrast, Ohio cancelled its March 17 primary.
By my tally -- the greater Detroit metro area accounts for approx 3500(JHU) of 4000(NPR) MI deaths.
Go to the JHU dashboard, + zoom in on the dots in the Detroit area, look at their size & click on each, then add up their component deaths sub totals.
From Detroit, W to Lansing, N to Flint, then compare to the dots in the Chicago, Boston & NYC metro areas.
Not unlike StL & B'more, where the adjoining county has as many, or more, deaths reported.
Consistent with major NE urban population centers.
Which obviously makes sense.
Density matters to rapidity of spread, ultimately leading to deaths.
The question, I think, was why Michigan/Detroit, rather than some other population centers? Of course, some such have been hit worse. Others much less.
Partly luck of the draw as to where the virus was spreading from and the amount of travel from that region and partly the timing of various policies to prevent rapid spread. Not knowing it was spreading meant we were blind.
Goes back to testing. Beginning with testing everyone traveling from any place with known cases and going back and testing recent travelers from those regions. We did a weak travel restriction, but never implemented in-bound testing or going back and testing prior travelers.
wgdsr wrote: ↑Sun May 03, 2020 2:10 pm
anyone have an idea/analysis on why michigan is doing so poorly to this point?
no ethnic or age disparity with the rest of the u.s. detroit city is/was bad but accounts for ~25% ish of the total so you could throw that out and they'd still be in bad shape.
they seem to be an outlier. if not the outlier.
Michigan could have been hit harder because the virus may have already been in the community for days or weeks before the symptoms or testing.
Among the possibilities Hutton and others have mentioned for the rapid spread in Michigan:
Detroit Metropolitan Airport, which has a large international hub and flights to Wuhan, China, where the outbreak originated in December and its airport remained open until Jan. 23.
Supply lines between Detroit automakers and Wuhan, a major auto hub and home to five car manufacturers including Dongfeng Motor, one of the biggest in China. General Motors has 15 assembly plants in China with its partners, while Ford has six and Fiat Chrysler has two.
Ties between automakers, particularly FCA, and Italy, which has more than 77,000 cases and 12,000 deaths.
Michigan's March 10 presidential primary and big campaign rallies leading up to it, including one that drew 6,000 in Detroit for Bernie Sanders on March 6. In contrast, Ohio cancelled its March 17 primary.
By my tally -- the greater Detroit metro area accounts for approx 3500(JHU) of 4000(NPR) MI deaths.
Go to the JHU dashboard, + zoom in on the dots in the Detroit area, look at their size & click on each, then add up their component deaths sub totals.
From Detroit, W to Lansing, N to Flint, then compare to the dots in the Chicago, Boston & NYC metro areas.
Not unlike StL & B'more, where the adjoining county has as many, or more, deaths reported.
Consistent with major NE urban population centers.
Which obviously makes sense.
Density matters to rapidity of spread, ultimately leading to deaths.
The question, I think, was why Michigan/Detroit, rather than some other population centers? Of course, some such have been hit worse. Others much less.
Partly luck of the draw as to where the virus was spreading from and the amount of travel from that region and partly the timing of various policies to prevent rapid spread. Not knowing it was spreading meant we were blind.
Goes back to testing. Beginning with testing everyone traveling from any place with known cases and going back and testing recent travelers from those regions. We did a weak travel restriction, but never implemented in-bound testing or going back and testing prior travelers.
So, blind.
Those handful of weeks were tragic.
Population density is a key metric. I saw it on one of the sites that was comparing outcomes by country. What is an interesting study is Cleveland versus Detroit versus Chicago.
wgdsr wrote: ↑Sun May 03, 2020 2:10 pm
anyone have an idea/analysis on why michigan is doing so poorly to this point?
no ethnic or age disparity with the rest of the u.s. detroit city is/was bad but accounts for ~25% ish of the total so you could throw that out and they'd still be in bad shape.
they seem to be an outlier. if not the outlier.
Michigan could have been hit harder because the virus may have already been in the community for days or weeks before the symptoms or testing.
Among the possibilities Hutton and others have mentioned for the rapid spread in Michigan:
Detroit Metropolitan Airport, which has a large international hub and flights to Wuhan, China, where the outbreak originated in December and its airport remained open until Jan. 23.
Supply lines between Detroit automakers and Wuhan, a major auto hub and home to five car manufacturers including Dongfeng Motor, one of the biggest in China. General Motors has 15 assembly plants in China with its partners, while Ford has six and Fiat Chrysler has two.
Ties between automakers, particularly FCA, and Italy, which has more than 77,000 cases and 12,000 deaths.
Michigan's March 10 presidential primary and big campaign rallies leading up to it, including one that drew 6,000 in Detroit for Bernie Sanders on March 6. In contrast, Ohio cancelled its March 17 primary.
By my tally -- the greater Detroit metro area accounts for approx 3500(JHU) of 4000(NPR) MI deaths.
Go to the JHU dashboard, + zoom in on the dots in the Detroit area, look at their size & click on each, then add up their component deaths sub totals.
From Detroit, W to Lansing, N to Flint, then compare to the dots in the Chicago, Boston & NYC metro areas.
Not unlike StL & B'more, where the adjoining county has as many, or more, deaths reported.
Consistent with major NE urban population centers.
Which obviously makes sense.
Density matters to rapidity of spread, ultimately leading to deaths.
The question, I think, was why Michigan/Detroit, rather than some other population centers? Of course, some such have been hit worse. Others much less.
Partly luck of the draw as to where the virus was spreading from and the amount of travel from that region and partly the timing of various policies to prevent rapid spread. Not knowing it was spreading meant we were blind.
Goes back to testing. Beginning with testing everyone traveling from any place with known cases and going back and testing recent travelers from those regions. We did a weak travel restriction, but never implemented in-bound testing or going back and testing prior travelers.
So, blind.
Those handful of weeks were tragic.
Blah, blah, blah, testing, testing, lost time, yada, yada, yada.
Analyze the red dots on the JHU dashboard. It's similar up & down the NE corridor metro areas from MA to NVA.
The dots along the entire corridor are larger than the rest of the surrounding states.
It's driven by travel patterns, transportation networks & population density of the "underserved".
Look at the % of CA's deaths in LA, MI's in Detrot metro & IL's in Chicago metro.
The useful data on the worldmeter site is Total deaths/million of population, by country.
The most relevant howgozit metric is deaths per capita of US vs W European nations.
Germany, Denmark & Norway are the only ones doing better than the US.
wgdsr wrote: ↑Sun May 03, 2020 2:10 pm
anyone have an idea/analysis on why michigan is doing so poorly to this point?
no ethnic or age disparity with the rest of the u.s. detroit city is/was bad but accounts for ~25% ish of the total so you could throw that out and they'd still be in bad shape.
they seem to be an outlier. if not the outlier.
Michigan could have been hit harder because the virus may have already been in the community for days or weeks before the symptoms or testing.
Among the possibilities Hutton and others have mentioned for the rapid spread in Michigan:
Detroit Metropolitan Airport, which has a large international hub and flights to Wuhan, China, where the outbreak originated in December and its airport remained open until Jan. 23.
Supply lines between Detroit automakers and Wuhan, a major auto hub and home to five car manufacturers including Dongfeng Motor, one of the biggest in China. General Motors has 15 assembly plants in China with its partners, while Ford has six and Fiat Chrysler has two.
Ties between automakers, particularly FCA, and Italy, which has more than 77,000 cases and 12,000 deaths.
Michigan's March 10 presidential primary and big campaign rallies leading up to it, including one that drew 6,000 in Detroit for Bernie Sanders on March 6. In contrast, Ohio cancelled its March 17 primary.
the int'l travel component, possibly dozens/hundreds of travelers populating and seeding michigan before anyone knew it was there. got there earlier than most. doesn't explain near fully the differences to west coast states. but something.
wgdsr wrote: ↑Sun May 03, 2020 2:10 pm
anyone have an idea/analysis on why michigan is doing so poorly to this point?
no ethnic or age disparity with the rest of the u.s. detroit city is/was bad but accounts for ~25% ish of the total so you could throw that out and they'd still be in bad shape.
they seem to be an outlier. if not the outlier.
Michigan could have been hit harder because the virus may have already been in the community for days or weeks before the symptoms or testing.
Among the possibilities Hutton and others have mentioned for the rapid spread in Michigan:
Detroit Metropolitan Airport, which has a large international hub and flights to Wuhan, China, where the outbreak originated in December and its airport remained open until Jan. 23.
Supply lines between Detroit automakers and Wuhan, a major auto hub and home to five car manufacturers including Dongfeng Motor, one of the biggest in China. General Motors has 15 assembly plants in China with its partners, while Ford has six and Fiat Chrysler has two.
Ties between automakers, particularly FCA, and Italy, which has more than 77,000 cases and 12,000 deaths.
Michigan's March 10 presidential primary and big campaign rallies leading up to it, including one that drew 6,000 in Detroit for Bernie Sanders on March 6. In contrast, Ohio cancelled its March 17 primary.
By my tally -- the greater Detroit metro area accounts for approx 3500(JHU) of 4000(NPR) MI deaths.
Go to the JHU dashboard, + zoom in on the dots in the Detroit area, look at their size & click on each, then add up their component deaths sub totals.
From Detroit, W to Lansing, N to Flint, then compare to the dots in the Chicago, Boston & NYC metro areas.
Not unlike StL & B'more, where the adjoining county has as many, or more, deaths reported.
Consistent with major NE urban population centers.
if you're adding in flint, lansing, etc. you're just looking at the majority of the population. not 80+%, but the majority.
lansing is the same distance to detroit as philly to ny.
anyway, their numbers are way out of whack from what you'd infer given everything.
Re: All things Chinese CoronaVirus
Posted: Sun May 03, 2020 8:41 pm
by wgdsr
for all those dying to see some hcq news, this didn't make the national media but just prior to the weekend was released: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 20073379v1
the preview pdf: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... l.pdf+html
similar to the VA deal, it is a retrospective study of patients.. this time out of a hospital in china (raised eyebrows) over a 2 month period. different from the VA study, it looks at patients that were all at a "similar" level -- critically ill and with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. they were all treated with antivirals, etc., some ventilators.
less than 50 got hcq also out of nearly 600 patients.
19% died in hcq group, 46% in the non-hcq group. also big decreases in cytokine il-6 levels.
p value < 0.001
