Coronavirus good news thread

dooderooni

Well-known member
Some really promising research is being done which is great news. Now I know many were/are against lockdown, but by not overwhelming the hospitals I am sure that has helped provide more opportunities and data for the research than if there had just been a constant stream of patients and no time to do anything other than providing triage care. It's certainly been a challenge and a long game, but it would seem that a lot of clever people have been working very hard to do their bit and have used the time bought by the various lockdowns to good effect.
Hopefully the knowledge and treatments will be passed onto the developing world without huge costs as well.
 

Blf

Active member
After 4 months of asking for testing for patients and staff at our local Nursing home the kits have arrived.
On the same morning we had an e mail from MBC saying if they were kits made by a certain company don't use them they don't work.
Of course when we checked they were the duff ones. What a farce.
😥
 

FabioPorkpie

Well-known member
As ever, incredibly informative. Two epidemiologists, specialist in evidence based medicine.
Just got round to watching this. Carl Heneghan makes some very interesting points. Not really sure what the other guy brought to the table but Heneghan is very interesting and talks a lot of sense.
 
As ever, incredibly informative. Two epidemiologists, specialist in evidence based medicine.
Really interesting watch. Thank you. Very sensible points and narrative. I do wish they would discuss some of the interventions in place in the same way as they do the masking debate- e.g social distancing/ hand washing/ other PPE measures/ indoor events/ singing/ sports. It would be good to understand the argument for any of the measures in place. I think I have a fair understanding of evidence/ lack of evidence but would like this challenged more. E.g I think masks are a simple and easily administered measure. If it is deemed masks are of little use, why distance? If its in the air then it is in the air for example.

I find it hard to reconcile the point at the end where the suggestion is that the virus will be classified as deadly as swine flu @ 0.3-0.5% (i think they were the numbers). Does this play down the impact the virus has had internationally in such a short space of time(high deaths- high transmission)? my understanding is that Swine Flu transmission was much smaller, and therefore risks of spread through the population were much smaller so to compare death rate seems difficult.
 
Someone like @bear66 could do with listening to this stuff..
Here's some good news in 2020 no excess deaths below the age of 60. 👍🏻
Have you got the numbers for average excess deaths per age group or a link to it? Will have a search for it later if not. These are crude numbers- but it is striking the number of deaths by week against age since January. Seems to be little change if you're under 50. And most importantly all leveling out consistently.

1595253679873.png
 

Alvez_48

Well-known member
Have you got the numbers for average excess deaths per age group or a link to it? Will have a search for it later if not. These are crude numbers- but it is striking the number of deaths by week against age since January. Seems to be little change if you're under 50. And most importantly all leveling out consistently.

View attachment 4940
It's in the video you replied to good sir.
 

FabioPorkpie

Well-known member

SmallTown

Well-known member
How so? Surely with so many candidates, even considering a high degree of failures, one or more will make it through the trials and regulatory requirements?

edit - quick check shows there are 165 in various stages of development.
It's just the length of time a phase 3 trial will take. It's not just efficacy they need to prove, it's things like side effects. These can take a lot longer to manifest themselves.
 
It's just the length of time a phase 3 trial will take. It's not just efficacy they need to prove, it's things like side effects. These can take a lot longer to manifest themselves.
ST - You seem to be assuming that they aren't going to rush something through? (I know you've said you work in the industry, so you know what you're talking about).

Surely phase 3 will take nothing like as long as normal. (Which I think I've read you saying before that it wouldn't be safe). However, with economies failing, I wouldn't be surprised if Govts took a bit of a calculated risk?
 

SmallTown

Well-known member
ST - You seem to be assuming that they aren't going to rush something through? (I know you've said you work in the industry, so you know what you're talking about).

Surely phase 3 will take nothing like as long as normal. (Which I think I've read you saying before that it wouldn't be safe). However, with economies failing, I wouldn't be surprised if Govts took a bit of a calculated risk?
It's something you simply CAN'T rush though. A side effect may nt show up for a while and it may be serious . Many people might be killed by an untested virus.

It's not as simple as showing people, money, resources at a problem during a phase 3 trial. You can't speed up the human metabolism. Well, you can, but that in itself would make the trial pointless.
 

bear66

Well-known member
It's something you simply CAN'T rush though. A side effect may nt show up for a while and it may be serious . Many people might be killed by an untested virus.

It's not as simple as showing people, money, resources at a problem during a phase 3 trial. You can't speed up the human metabolism. Well, you can, but that in itself would make the trial pointless.
Ultimately we need to know that it is effective. No point 50m people thinking they're "immune" and 6 months later there is a spike in infections as people change their habits.
 
Top