Lockdown! Part 2

[IanD]

1 hour ago, David Mack said:

 

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.

 

Yes it's very likely fast-tracking and taking shortcuts is a good idea if the result is many more lives saved than waiting for something (almost) proved safe and effective.

 

But even the fast-tracks and shortcuts need some genuine evidence that there's a good chance they'll work and a small chance that there won't be horrible side-effects -- for example increasing numbers of heart attacks, which may cancel out any positive effects on Covid-19 death rates.

 

Excluding the people who died (or couldn't be retested because they were in intensive care) from a study and then claiming the treatment was a success for the rest -- with a small sample size and no control group -- is self-serving publicity-driven bullsh*t, not science. It doesn't show in any way that the treatment works, or that any positive outcome outweighs any negative side-effects. It could just as easily kill more people than it cures when properly investigated, or do nothing.

Edited April 9, 2020 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

2 hours 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.

9. Our obligations
9.1 We will do our best to keep the Waterway open for navigation, but closures may be required as a result of occasional unforeseen events or essential maintenance and repair work. Except in emergencies or for other unavoidable reasons, we shall try to arrange our maintenance work to cause you the least disruption. This means that most work requiring closures will be done between the beginning of November and the end of March. There may be other occasions when, due to causes beyond our reasonable control, we have to close part or (exceptionally) all of the Waterway.
9.2 The Licence fees are calculated on the assumption that you will be affected by closures from time to time and accordingly refunds of Licence fees will not be made for closures as described in this Condition 9.

[Richard10002]

4 hours ago, Dr Bob said:

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?

 

Yet again, this guy touches on what is being talked about. I think his explanation is pretty close to laymans terms and, whilst he is only able to debunk it based on his experience of what he expects to see, what he actually sees, and what he doesnt see, in his own ICU, what he says does seem to make sense. He accepts that he only sees a small number of patients, so may be missing something. Starts at about 9.00min, and ends at 16.55min. It's one of a few things he talks about and, IMHO, all are worth watching:

 

 

[Dr Bob]

50 minutes ago, IanD said:

 It could just as easily kill more people than it cures when properly investigated, or do nothing.

Yes it could. What we need is an informed view from peeps who are experts on this ie a comment from the CMO rather than the uninformed view of peeps on here. You have no idea if this virus is attacking red blood cells or not. The experts will say whether that is true or not. You may well be right in which side of the fence you fall on.....but that is from an uniformed view.....unless of course you are an experienced biochemist/virologist. Lets get a proper input before dissing stuff we dont understand.

[Mike Todd]

1 hour ago, frahkn said:

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.

Not at all - you wait until there is sufficient data to provide a realistic model that correctly predicts behaviour. There is never any scientific reason to accept an hypothesis (which is all that is) just because it is still the only one around. It can still be wrong. It is OK (at least scientifically if not politically) to say that we do not have an answer.

 

A lot of science (and pseudo-science) is based on statistical calculations. It is always important to remember that statistical tests, such as correlation and significance, are only used to show that the alternative to the null hypothesis is unlikely to  be true. In that case, the null hypothesis is accepted. What is usually forgotten is that the underlying maths starts from an hypothesis for which there is an a priori reason to believe. The stats are not valid if you just apply it to random sets of data.

 

I shall never forget my stats lecturer recounting that, in preparing for the lectures, he reminded himself of the calculations by using two arbitrary sets of data - the gross national product and the import of bananas through Bristol (I think I did say this was some time ago!). he obtained a high correlation between the two data sets and suggested that the way to improve the country's economy, as measured by GNP (as it was) would be to import more bananas through Bristol.

 

Of course there was no a priori reason to believe the proposal and the simple correlation was neither causative nor, probably, even indicative. Fortunately, no future political leader was taking the course at the time otherwise it might have altered the direction of history.

[Dr Bob]

44 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

Yet again, this guy touches on what is being talked about. I think his explanation is pretty close to laymans terms and, whilst he is only able to debunk it based on his experience of what he expects to see, what he actually sees, and what he doesnt see, in his own ICU, what he says does seem to make sense. He accepts that he only sees a small number of patients, so may be missing something. Starts at about 9.00min, and ends at 16.55min. It's one of a few things he talks about and, IMHO, all are worth watching:

 

 

 

 

Thanks Richard. Yes that is a very good video. I am assuming he knows what he is talkng about ....a lot of peeps on here dont!....... but his 'high level' explanation is good and would tend to knock out the hemoglobin attack theory if what he is saying is correct. It's good to get expert input!

Overall this guy's videos seem worth listening to as he is giving significantly more information that I am seeing in articles etc. Keep us posted Richard if you see anymore.

[WotEver]

Just saw on the news that Hydroxychloraquine (or however it’s spelt) is one of the drugs that the NHS has been trialling for a while now - over 3000 trials so far. 

[matty40s]

4 hours ago, tree monkey said:

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

Anecdotal evidence shows that death is worse than most of these.

[Dr Bob]

6 minutes ago, WotEver said:

Just saw on the news that Hydroxychloraquine (or however it’s spelt) is one of the drugs that the NHS has been trialling for a while now - over 3000 trials so far. 

Let's hope it does work as no other drugs are seeming to have much of an effect.

Even if Dr woteverhisnamewas hemoglobin theory is not the primary route of this virus, maybe after knackering the air sacks in the lungs, it then has a go at the hemoglobin, where the HQ would then maybe have an effect (with zinc?). Every week, we should be nearer to a solution to treat the effects of the virus with drugs. The later you get this virus the better.

[tree monkey]

3 minutes ago, matty40s said:

Anecdotal evidence shows that death is worse than most of these.

Well yeah, most of them

[matty40s]

4 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

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

Yes

4 hours 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.

The EA is really not helping itself this year, with the licence fee due now.

After 7% increases for the last 3 years (25% overall), the Nene having been shut from end September until midweek this week, and one lock still not finished/handed back......sending boaters a nice letter telling them the next increase MAY be delayed until next year isn't really helping boaters a lot is it.

[frahkn]

1 hour ago, Mike Todd said:

Not at all - you wait until there is sufficient data to provide a realistic model that correctly predicts behaviour. There is never any scientific reason to accept an hypothesis (which is all that is) just because it is still the only one around. It can still be wrong. It is OK (at least scientifically if not politically) to say that we do not have an answer.

 

A lot of science (and pseudo-science) is based on statistical calculations. It is always important to remember that statistical tests, such as correlation and significance, are only used to show that the alternative to the null hypothesis is unlikely to  be true. In that case, the null hypothesis is accepted. What is usually forgotten is that the underlying maths starts from an hypothesis for which there is an a priori reason to believe. The stats are not valid if you just apply it to random sets of data.

 

I shall never forget my stats lecturer recounting that, in preparing for the lectures, he reminded himself of the calculations by using two arbitrary sets of data - the gross national product and the import of bananas through Bristol (I think I did say this was some time ago!). he obtained a high correlation between the two data sets and suggested that the way to improve the country's economy, as measured by GNP (as it was) would be to import more bananas through Bristol.

 

Of course there was no a priori reason to believe the proposal and the simple correlation was neither causative nor, probably, even indicative. Fortunately, no future political leader was taking the course at the time otherwise it might have altered the direction of history.

Like shoe size and reading ability! I've read "How to lie with statistics" as well.

 

I'm going to stop now, either you aren't able to understand or (more likely) I'm not capable of explaining what I mean.

 

I've felt a bit "out of it" all day and can't really concentrate on this.

[Richard10002]

1 hour ago, Dr Bob said:

 

 

Thanks Richard. Yes that is a very good video. I am assuming he knows what he is talkng about ....a lot of peeps on here dont!....... but his 'high level' explanation is good and would tend to knock out the hemoglobin attack theory if what he is saying is correct. It's good to get expert input!

Overall this guy's videos seem worth listening to as he is giving significantly more information that I am seeing in articles etc. Keep us posted Richard if you see anymore.

Med Cram videos seem to go back several years, and seem mainly directed at practitioners. The site seems reputable, and it would be hard to see it lasting for years if it were not.

 

Since the start of the pandemic, this guy has produced on an almost daily basis, and they are numbered as Update xx, (52 in this case). They were not daily for a week or so, a short time ago, as he was on duty as a specialist in his ICU department.

 

I suppose you/we could go back to Update 1, I think I've watched them from about 32, and it is surprising that, almost as soon as something is questioned here, he pops up with some kind of discussion in his videos - I might exaggerate, but he discussed the healthdata.org forecasting site two vids ago, and the Heem thing in this one.

 

There are many, many, sources of info on this thing on TV and the internet, so none of us can look at more than a little. I've chosen this set of videos as one of my "Go To's".

[Richard10002]

35 minutes ago, WotEver said:

Just saw on the news that Hydroxychloraquine (or however it’s spelt) is one of the drugs that the NHS has been trialling for a while now - over 3000 trials so far. 

I wonder if they are trialling Invermectin? In the simplest terms, it apparently closes down a route of entry for the virus into cells. Ready made anti virals, already given approval for use in humans, and kind of generic in the way that they work, must be the quickest way of getting something into patients that could work.

[WotEver]

5 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

I wonder if they are trialling Invermectin? In the simplest terms, it apparently closes down a route of entry for the virus into cells. Ready made anti virals, already given approval for use in humans, and kind of generic in the way that they work, must be the quickest way of getting something into patients that could work.

If you can find ITV national news for tonight (or maybe their website) they listed the drugs that they’re trialling. I can’t remember if Invermectin was one of them, sorry. 

[The Welsh Cruiser]

28 minutes ago, matty40s said:

Yes

The EA is really not helping itself this year, with the licence fee due now.

After 7% increases for the last 3 years (25% overall), the Nene having been shut from end September until midweek this week, and one lock still not finished/handed back......sending boaters a nice letter telling them the next increase MAY be delayed until next year isn't really helping boaters a lot is it.

I very much of many (any?) local authorities will show such generosity when the next batch of council tax bills go out. CRT as well.

[tree monkey]

4 minutes ago, WotEver said:

If you can find ITV national news for tonight (or maybe their website) they listed the drugs that they’re trialling. I can’t remember if Invermectin was one of them, sorry. 

That's a curious one as it's a parasite treatment 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin

[WotEver]

https://www.itv.com/news/2020-04-09/the-drugs-on-trial-that-may-be-the-key-to-defeating-the-coronavirus/

[Richard10002]

1 hour ago, tree monkey said:

That's a curious one as it's a parasite treatment 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin

 

For a different reason, I referred above to Youtube Video from MedCram entitled:

 

Coronavirus Pandemic Update 52: Ivermectin Treatment; Does COVID-19 Attack Hemoglobin?

Talks about Ivermectim doing what I suggested, (I called it Invermectin  )

 

He didnt talk about it being a parasite treatment???

[WotEver]

35 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

He didnt talk about it being a parasite treatment???

From that Wikipedia article...

It works by causing the parasite's cell membrane to increase in permeability, resulting in paralysis and death.

Of the parasite, hopefully

[blackrose]

19 hours ago, Loddon said:

 

Its not a licence on EA waters

Its a registration.

 

I'm not sure I understand the difference?

[MtB]

10 minutes ago, blackrose said:

 

I'm not sure I understand the difference?

 

Nigel Moore explains it from time to time. 

 

Basically you have a licence on the canals as there is no public right to navigate. On rivers, there is an absolute right to navigate a boat so they have to have something else to control what gets put in rivers, and that is the registration system. I don't understand it well so some of this is probably only half right. 

 

Or all of it, even!

 

[Richard10002]

13 hours ago, WotEver said:

From that Wikipedia article...

 

 

Of the parasite, hopefully

From the same Wikipedia article, (not promising):

 

"SARS-CoV-2Edit

Ivermectin inhibits replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro (in monkey kidney cell cultre) with an IC₅₀ of 2.2 - 2.8 µM, making it a possible candidate for COVID-19 drug repurposing research.^[78] Note that the doses used in cell culture would require 10^4 larger doses in humans based on this data, which does not look promising as an effective treatment for Covid19.^[79] Moreover, cell culture experiments also showed promise for treating Dengue virus infection, but later failed in animal models.^[80]"

[Alan de Enfield]

33 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Nigel Moore explains it from time to time. 

 

Basically you have a licence on the canals as there is no public right to navigate. On rivers, there is an absolute right to navigate a boat so they have to have something else to control what gets put in rivers, and that is the registration system. I don't understand it well so some of this is probably only half right. 

 

Or all of it, even!

 

In short - it seems that a licence is subject to VAT and a Registration is not. (Not that C&RT make any difference)

 

An old post of Nigel's :

 

 

To recap then: A 'licence' is exactly what it sounds like – formal permission to do something, without which permission it would be unlawful to do so. 

 

'Registration' is a statutorily imposed identification system having nothing to do with a grant of permission to do anything.

 

Invariably, all canal enabling Acts conferred a right for the public to keep and use boats on them, but invariably also, there was a requirement for all boats to be registered, so that the companies could keep tabs on the boats for charging purposes, and for identifying the boats in the event of any breach of byelaws.

 

By contrast, on rivers, the right to keep and use boats derives from the public right of navigation, and such things as registration requirements did not apply either.

 

Note that even on rivers, charges could be made for things authorised as chargeable by statute, e.g passage through locks.

 

From the passage of the 1968 Transport Act, all conferred navigation rights were abolished. That expressly excluded navigation rights that were not conferred, even if confirmed by some statute. Following 1968 therefore, use by boats of the canals became permissive as opposed to use of the rivers where it remained as of right.

 

In 1975 the BW Act was passed adding to the byelaw making powers a power to demand and charge for licences on the non-river waterways, and accordingly the 1975 byelaws were passed making it obligatory to display licences on the canals. Sadly, BW were in such a rush they forgot that they had not passed the necessary byelaw to make licences compulsory in the first place (!) so the very next year they abolished the 1975 byelaws and passed new ones, making the licence obligatory AND requiring prominent display of same. Registration continued as it always had been, compulsory.

 

The 1971 Act had made no licensing obligatory for boats on rivers, it simply imposed a registration requirement on some of them (the number increased over the years) for a small charge, issue of which could not be refused, nor any conditions attached. Once having paid for this registration for pleasure boats, they were freed from the previous toll demands for individual lock passage.

 

Not until 1995 were any conditions applied to issue of river registrations, and the conditions were limited to the three we all know so well. Of course, if the old BW/CaRT argument over s.43 of the 1962 Act held true, none of the relevant Acts would have been needed, but the argument being nonsense, the statutes were indeed necessary before any of these conditions of use and charging could be made.

 

The old BW EoG 'Informative' was broadly accurate in setting out the details and history in abbreviated and elliptical form.

 

I suppose, from a VAT viewpoint, the charges for registration could be considered to be merely covering an administrative cost, whereas charges for licences could be considered as payment for an offered service or product. The 1983 watering down of the charge level distinction might well attenuate the difference - in perception anyway.

[Richard10002]

16 hours ago, tree monkey said:

That's a curious one as it's a parasite treatment 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin

Here’s one that acknowledges its use as a parasite treatment, and explains its likely effectiveness as a COVID 19 treatment, subject to trials in humans: