Lockdown! Part 2

[WotEver]

14 hours ago, The Welsh Cruiser said:

I suspect the government may consider a more regional approach when the time for lifting restrictions comes around.

I don’t. All that would achieve would be to allow the lesser-infected areas to rise up to equal the more heavily infected areas. 
 

It needs squashing everywhere, not simply in the worst areas. 

[Dr Bob]

3 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

But it IS being reported in mainstream media. Next time I encounter it I'll bung up a link. 

 

I put this up as it gives more detail than the newspaper articles. And no it's not peer reviewed, tested etc. or anything like that, its just being seen as an avenue for investigation. You can ignore it, shoot it down as much as you like. If its rubbish, we need to know. Are you a doctor by the way, or in any way qualified to condemn it out of hand as not worthy of even looking into?

 

I'm very curious about why this account has been suspended though. As you point out, they don't care about the accuracy of what it posted so why the suspending of it?

 

 

 

I found the article interesting.

In science, when you have something happening you don't understand, you come up with theories to explain it. The only way to find the correct theory is to discount the others. In this case then, we need the data that disproves this theory. If each bit of evidence the author provides is right then it has to be a candidate for a viable theory. We therefore need an expert to say where the author is wrong or if he has made a wrong assumption. Has there been any response to this? If the guy is right then that is pretty fundamental to treating the virus. We need a peer group review of the document.

[WotEver]

36 minutes ago, Dr Bob said:

I found the article interesting.

More interesting (well, some of it) discussion about the article here:

https://www.smalldeadanimals.com/index.php/2020/04/05/wuhan-flu-21/

[frahkn]

1 hour ago, Dr Bob said:

I found the article interesting.

In science, when you have something happening you don't understand, you come up with theories to explain it. The only way to find the correct theory is to discount the others. In this case then, we need the data that disproves this theory. If each bit of evidence the author provides is right then it has to be a candidate for a viable theory. We therefore need an expert to say where the author is wrong or if he has made a wrong assumption. Has there been any response to this? If the guy is right then that is pretty fundamental to treating the virus. We need a peer group review of the document.

 

For some reason it is very difficult to convince non-scientists of this self evident truth.

[MtB]

Dr Anthony Cardillo is the chap who appears to have originated this treatment. He has been giving this stuff to his patients and claiming they become symptom free in 12 hours. 

 

Here is an example interview with him, in typical American shouty style of TV.

 

https://abc7.com/coronavirus-drug-covid-19-malaria-hydroxychloroquine/6079864/

 

Googling his name turns up more stuff. 

 

 

[Mike Todd]

2 hours ago, WotEver said:

I don’t. All that would achieve would be to allow the lesser-infected areas to rise up to equal the more heavily infected areas. 
 

It needs squashing everywhere, not simply in the worst areas. 

Travel is the problem: here in Cornwall we have thus far only had a comparatively low infection rate. There has been quite a lot of adverse reaction from residents towards second home owners and others, for example airbnb-ing their holiday home as a Covid-19 retreat. As it happens, my largely unscientific observations are consistent with a quiet high level of acceptance and compliance with at least the social distancing rule. With a quite narrow access into the county (only a few places offer a ready crossing point over the Tamar) the opportunity for containing the virus is quite high.

 

I have two worries: 

 

Firstly, it does seem that the virus will get into every area eventually unless there is total lock down and its eradication is a very long term aspiration. London and other metro-minded places are clearly well ahead in the infection curve but this does not mean that we will not see it eventually. So this worry is that once the rates fall in London there will be an assumption amongst policy makers that the lockdown should be lifted just at the point we will be needing it most.

 

Secondly, if there is a regional lifting, how will we prevent travel into and out of the early release areas? The virus most likely spreads just a little at a time so only small infringements of a region will increase the rate at which the virus spreads elsewhere.

18 minutes ago, frahkn said:

 

For some reason it is very difficult to convince non-scientists of this self evident truth.

Sadly, this is not always true. It must just be the case that all theories are wrong and that we have yet to find the right one! Stopping when you only have one left is a quick way to a myth.

[David Mack]

11 hours ago, David Mack said:

 

I might have more faith in libertymavenstock's ideas if they weren't presented in such a jocular fashion, and if they were reported in the mainstream media, rather than a web archive page from a "we don't fact-check" website.

 

Here's a more mainstream media report. Hydroxychliroquine and chloroquine are to be trialled in Australia.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/07/controversial-malaria-drug-hydroxychloroquine-to-be-given-to-coronavirus-patients-in-australia

 

But note this from the Guardian:

"Much of the focus on the drug came after a small French study, which has since been widely disputed and been found to have omitted data contain spurious results. A small study from China found no benefit to chloroquine being given to Covid-19 patients."

[WotEver]

19 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Secondly, if there is a regional lifting, how will we prevent travel into and out of the early release areas?

Exactly. The whole ‘regional’ approach mooted by some is a nonsense. What we need is more travel restrictions, not less. 

[Dr Bob]

27 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

 It must just be the case that all theories are wrong and that we have yet to find the right one! Stopping when you only have one left is a quick way to a myth.

It depends what you mean by stopping. Stopping finding another theory or stopping trying to disprove one?

If all the theories on a topic fall down because a fact discounts one of the key assumptions on each theory, then the one left standing has to be a contender for what is happening. If you cant find any other theories that fit the data then that one left standing is the best description of what is happening. That is how science works. In this particular article, it would be interesting to see the data that disproves the theory (if there is any). I must read Mike's last link!

 

[Machpoint005]

9 minutes ago, Dr Bob said:

the one left standing has to be a contender for what is happening.

 

Occam (or Ockham).

[Dr Bob]

1 hour ago, WotEver said:

More interesting (well, some of it) discussion about the article here:

https://www.smalldeadanimals.com/index.php/2020/04/05/wuhan-flu-21/

Thanks for posting that Tony.

If anyone wants a flavor of what's in the original article, then this link is worth a read (its about 30 mins read though).

There is a lot of discussion on the theory of fighting the breakdown of the haemoglobin (rather than sorting out the lungs - ie ventilators are dangerous!?) with quite a few peeps (i assume medically qualified) saying the theory is not valid. Problem is I cant see any comments that provide facts that would 'prove' the theory is false. Lots of 'handwaving' in the negative resonses. For instance here is one of  the views to shoot it down (taken from that link in Tonys post)

 

The rest is gobbledygook! He gives no evidence that COVID 19 binds to the heme molecules in red cells and further that this separates the iron from the globin protein.
They then go on to imply that the free iron atoms (he calls them ions without further explanation Fe++ or Fe+++(?) are the source of the virus toxicity – no mention of transferrin an iron binding protein in the plasma which mops up spilled iron atoms). He then goes on to say that the virus attaches to the porphyrins of the heme (no evidence given or known about heme – virus binding!)

 

The criticism is all about what is missing  from the theory, not what is incorrect about the assumptions and facts, so doesnt really knock the theory out. The response should be saying things like, "you cannot make that jump (assumption) because.....and state a fact".

Is the new theory worth discussing then given the peeps who came up with it are not 'nobel' winning Dr's (and far from it!)? I havent got a clue as it is far above my pay grade but it could provide a different insight into treatment of ICU patients as it basically says pressurising the lungs with a ventilator is not a good idea.....treat the breakdown of red blood cells instead. Maybe a good 'informed' response from the CMO would be appropriate in this afternoons PM briefing?

 

[frahkn]

1 hour ago, Mike Todd said:

 

Sadly, this is not always true. It must just be the case that all theories are wrong and that we have yet to find the right one! Stopping when you only have one left is a quick way to a myth.

I may not have expressed myself well.

 

You have a situation in the real world that is not understood.

Various theories "explaining" this situation are developed.

These may include the correct one or they may all be wrong/incomplete - it may be the case that our knowledge insufficient to provide the correct theory. 

In either case the methodology for picking the best one remains the same, you try to knock the others down.

 

The one remaining is the best explanation of the facts and you act as if it is correct until a better one comes along. 

[MtB]

14 minutes ago, frahkn said:

I may not have expressed myself well.

 

You have a situation in the real world that is not understood.

Various theories "explaining" this situation are developed.

These may include the correct one or they may all be wrong/incomplete - it may be the case that our knowledge insufficient to provide the correct theory. 

In either case the methodology for picking the best one remains the same, you try to knock the others down.

 

The one remaining is the best explanation of the facts and you act as if it is correct until a better one comes along. 

 

All well and good when there is no urgency or millions of lives at risk. 

 

What we actually have is some good empirical evidence the treatment works, but we haven't worked out why or how exactly, yet. 

 

So people seem to fall in to one of two camps. I fall into the camp of thinking lets us it. Others fall into the camp of saying until we know how it works and and peer reviewed it and then done the 18 months of clinical trials to prove it works and prove that the side effects are not so bad as to leave the victim worse off than if the treatment was not given, we should not allow it. 

 

If I'm facing intubation with a 50/50 chance of survival I want the hydroxychloroquine and zinc (don't forget the zinc, it doesn't work without the zinc) first, given Dr Wossaname's 100% success rate with it. 

 

Or is his success rate thought to be fiction? I'd imagine it pretty easy to check out. 

[tree monkey]

5 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

All well and good when there is no urgency or millions of lives at risk. 

 

What we actually have is some good empirical evidence the treatment works, but we haven't worked out why or how exactly, yet. 

 

So people seem to fall in to one of two camps. I fall into the camp of thinking lets us it. Others fall into the camp of saying until we know how it works and and peer reviewed it and then done the 18 months of clinical trials to prove it works and prove that the side effects are not so bad as to leave the victim worse off than if the treatment was not given, we should not allow it. 

 

If I'm facing intubation with a 50/50 chance of survival I want the hydroxychloroquine and zinc (don't forget the zinc, it doesn't work without the zinc) first, given Dr Wossaname's 100% success rate with it. 

 

Or is his success rate thought to be fiction? I'd imagine it pretty easy to check out. 

I would probably be with but the drug has some fairly serious side effects, it's a gamble based on anecdotal evidence,

Ths following doesn't take into account reactions to other drugs used either

 

Link

https://www.drugs.com/sfx/hydroxychloroquine-side-effects.html

 

Blistering, peeling, loosening of the skin

blurred vision or other vision changes

chest discomfort, pain, or tightness

cough or hoarseness

dark urine

decreased urination

defective color vision

diarrhea

difficulty breathing

difficulty seeing at night

dizziness or fainting

fast, pounding, uneven heartbeat

feeling that others are watching you or controlling your behavior

feeling that others can hear your thoughts

feeling, seeing, or hearing things that are not there

fever with or without chills

general feeling of tiredness or weakness

headache

inability to move the eyes

increased blinking or spasms of the eyelid

joint or muscle pain

large, hive-like swelling on the face, eyelids, lips, tongue, throat, hands, legs, feet, and sex organs

loss of hearing

lower back or side pain

noisy breathing

painful or difficult urination

red irritated eyes

red skin lesions, often with a purple center

severe mood or mental changes

sore throat sores, ulcers, or white spots on the lips or in the mouth

sticking out of the tongue

stomach pain

swelling of the feet or lower legs

swollen or painful glands

trouble with breathing, speaking, or swallowing

uncontrolled twisting movements of the neck, trunk, arms, or legs

unusual behavior

unusual bleeding or bruising

unusual facial expressions

unusual tiredness or weakness

yellow eyes or skin

[blackrose]

On 26/03/2020 at 16:46, Izz said:

I'm cancelling paying my license.

 

There's not really a lot of other choices right now.

 

I've already started a new direct debit with the EA for this year and since my boat is still on their waters I feel obliged to pay my licence whether the boat is allowed to move or not. However, since we can't move perhaps they should be obliged to at least reduce the licence fees? 

[haggis]

I may be wrong but I understood that a boat licence only gives you permission to float your boat. It does not include any "right" to cruise. If that is the case, why should we get a refund?

 

Haggis

[ditchcrawler]

7 minutes ago, haggis said:

I may be wrong but I understood that a boat licence only gives you permission to float your boat. It does not include any "right" to cruise. If that is the case, why should we get a refund?

 

Haggis

Didn't they win the case for some boats that never move from the marina to pay

[IanD]

28 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

All well and good when there is no urgency or millions of lives at risk. 

 

What we actually have is some good empirical evidence the treatment works, but we haven't worked out why or how exactly, yet. 

 

So people seem to fall in to one of two camps. I fall into the camp of thinking lets us it. Others fall into the camp of saying until we know how it works and and peer reviewed it and then done the 18 months of clinical trials to prove it works and prove that the side effects are not so bad as to leave the victim worse off than if the treatment was not given, we should not allow it. 

 

If I'm facing intubation with a 50/50 chance of survival I want the hydroxychloroquine and zinc (don't forget the zinc, it doesn't work without the zinc) first, given Dr Wossaname's 100% success rate with it. 

 

Or is his success rate thought to be fiction? I'd imagine it pretty easy to check out. 

Dr Wossname claimed a 100% success rate, unfortunately this was only in the patients that didn't die which was about 20% of the total IIRC but were excluded from his analysis.

 

By the same criteria, even if 90% had died he could still claim a 100% success rate for the survivors.

 

To me this looks like junk science from a publicity-hungry American looking for fame and fortune...

[David Mack]

14 minutes ago, haggis said:

I may be wrong but I understood that a boat licence only gives you permission to float your boat. It does not include any "right" to cruise. If that is the case, why should we get a refund?

 

Haggis

I'm quite sure that EA, CRT and other navigation authorities are still entitled to their licence fees while we can't go boating. Their own costs will continue to run through this period, and other sources of income may well be down.

[WotEver]

25 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

Link

https://www.drugs.com/sfx/hydroxychloroquine-side-effects.html

 

<snip>
 

difficulty breathing

Erm...

[David Mack]

2 minutes ago, IanD said:

Dr Wossname claimed a 100% success rate, unfortunately this was only in the patients that didn't die which was about 20% of the total IIRC but were excluded from his analysis.

 

By the same criteria, even if 90% had died he could still claim a 100% success rate for the survivors.

 

To me this looks like junk science from a publicity-hungry American looking for fame and fortune...

 

Yup. All the hallmarks of fake news as far as I can see.

That said, with millions set to die worldwide in the next few weeks and months, it must be worthwhile fast tracking prospective treatments and vaccines rather than following the normal drawn out development and testing stages. But that will probaby result in some dying from the unproven treatment who might otherwise have survived.

 

[tree monkey]

8 minutes ago, WotEver said:

Erm...

Yeah, exactly, that's the point really, any drug has side effects it's balancing those risks against not taking it, it might be a miracle cure but it might be a cure that causes so many long term problems it could be debilitating or of course it could be worthless 

 

Edited April 9, 2020 by tree monkey

[Mike Todd]

2 hours ago, Dr Bob said:

It depends what you mean by stopping. Stopping finding another theory or stopping trying to disprove one?

If all the theories on a topic fall down because a fact discounts one of the key assumptions on each theory, then the one left standing has to be a contender for what is happening. If you cant find any other theories that fit the data then that one left standing is the best description of what is happening. That is how science works. In this particular article, it would be interesting to see the data that disproves the theory (if there is any). I must read Mike's last link!

 

Not the way science worked back in the says when I did it! 

 

Just because all the other theories have fallen, gives no credibility to another one that has not yet been proved or disproved.

 

In any case, science never proves anything, it only seeks to describe what happens in a way that helps to predict the future. Newton's apple observations helped the rest of us to understand that apples will generally fall to the ground.

 

At least that was how it was back in the days when I dis some Philosophy of Science.

 

Perhaps it has all changed

[GUMPY]

43 minutes ago, blackrose said:

 

I've already started a new direct debit with the EA for this year and since my boat is still on their waters I feel obliged to pay my licence whether the boat is allowed to move or not. However, since we can't move perhaps they should be obliged to at least reduce the licence fees? 

Its not a licence

Its a registration 

You still need it even if you can't use your boat

No reason for EA to reduce it.

Besides which all repair work to locks etc is suspended so nothing is being fixed when it breaks so you may not get far anyway.

26 minutes ago, David Mack said:

I'm quite sure that EA, CRT and other navigation authorities are still entitled to their licence fees while we can't go boating. Their own costs will continue to run through this period, and other sources of income may well be down.

Its not a licence on EA waters

Its a registration.

[frahkn]

54 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Not the way science worked back in the says when I did it! 

 

Just because all the other theories have fallen, gives no credibility to another one that has not yet been proved or disproved.

 

In any case, science never proves anything, it only seeks to describe what happens in a way that helps to predict the future. Newton's apple observations helped the rest of us to understand that apples will generally fall to the ground.

 

At least that was how it was back in the days when I dis some Philosophy of Science.

 

Perhaps it has all changed

It is because the scientific method does not prove anything beyond doubt that a theory which is still standing has current credibility. Since you don't have access to proof, you are left with disproving the others.