Coronavirus Covid-19 - opšta tema

[Time Crisis]

Kad smo već kod Francuza:

 

Quote

Was the virus in France last year?

The number of new recorded deaths is the lowest since late March, when only deaths in hospitals were being recorded. The new figures include deaths in care homes and have been declining for several days.

Meanwhile an intensive care chief in the Paris region has told local media that the virus was present in France on 27 December - a month before the first cases were confirmed.

Yves Cohen told BFMTV that his team had revisited negative tests for flu and other coronaviruses on 24 patients who had been in hospital with respiratory symptoms in December and January.

"Of the 24 patients, we had one positive result for Covid-19 on 27 December when he was in hospital with us," he said, adding that the test had been repeated several times to confirm the result.

Dr Cohen said he had reported the case to the regional health authorities and called for other negative tests from the same period to be retested.

 

Edited May 3, 2020 by Time Crisis

[borris_]

Voir les nouveaux Tweets

Conversation

 

 

 

 

David Boulware, MD MPH

 

@boulware_dr

 

We continue to enroll for our COVID19 prevention and preemptive early treatment trials. http://covidpep.umn.edu In reviewing the safety data to date of 1290 participants randomized, we have had no serious adverse events due to #hydroxychloriquine.

3:49 PM · 3 mai 2020·Twitter Web App

[mustang]

8 minutes ago, borris_ said:

Voir les nouveaux Tweets

Conversation

 

 

 

 

David Boulware, MD MPH

 

@boulware_dr

 

We continue to enroll for our COVID19 prevention and preemptive early treatment trials. http://covidpep.umn.edu In reviewing the safety data to date of 1290 participants randomized, we have had no serious adverse events due to #hydroxychloriquine.

3:49 PM · 3 mai 2020·Twitter Web App

 

ne razumem sta mu to znaci? nema kontraidikacija i uspesno se bori protiv corone?

[borris_]

Samo da za sada nema kontraindikacije. To je jedan od argumenata protivnika ovog lijeka. 

 

Za sada iz ove studije nema još vijesti da li je lijek uspješan (oni koriste samo ovaj lijek bez asocijacije sa antibiotikom).

[mustang]

thx

[Gojko & Stojko]

Od australijskog dopisnika iz Londona (koji je i sam preležao virus). Kakva mlitava izjava na kraju CMO-a Krisa Vitija, u švedskom stilu, skidanja svake odgovornosti za izostanak testiranja i masovno umiranje i odlaganja preispitivanja sopstvene nesposobnosti. 

'Biggest failure in a generation': Where did Britain go wrong?

Unlike Italy, the United Kingdom had time to prepare for the coronavirus tsunami. But as the death toll climbs, critics say Britain's response has suffered from a series of deadly mistakes and miscalculations.

By Bevan Shields

May 3, 2020

 

Health Secretary Matt Hancock was midway through a radio interview when the phone call came through live to air. On the line was Intisar Chowdhury, whose father Abdul had made a prescient public plea to Boris Johnson in late March.

 

Through a Facebook post, the 53-year-old consultant urologist for a London hospital had urged the Prime Minister to make sure every health worker in Britain would be given protective equipment during the coronavirus pandemic. Abdul Mabud Chowdhury died just three weeks later, after contracting the disease.

 

In his phone call, the doctor's grieving son asked for answers and an apology: "The public is not expecting the government to handle this perfectly," he told Hancock. "We just want you to openly acknowledge that there have been mistakes in handling the virus, especially to me and to so many families that have really lost loved ones as a result of this virus and probably as a result of the government not handling it seriously enough."

 

Chowdhury seemingly spoke on behalf of a growing chorus of health experts, MPs and members of the public who think Britain's response to the crisis has suffered from a series of deadly mistakes and miscalculations.

 

The charges focus on four areas: that healthcare workers struggled to access personal protective equipment, that Britain was too slow to implement a lockdown, that it bungled testing, and that vulnerable care home residents were not properly protected.

 

Downing Street and key ministers such as Hancock have been reluctant to concede many errors, although their tone has shifted over recent days as the official death toll hit 28,446, one of the highest in the world and well above the 20,000 figure Chief Scientific Adviser Patrick Vallance once said the government hoped to not exceed.

 

Says Martin McKee, professor of European public health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and an adviser to the World Health Organisation: "The countries that moved fast have curtailed the epidemic. The countries that delayed have not. It's as simple as that."

 

Dr Richard Horton, editor in chief of The Lancet medical journal, is even more damning: "The handling of the COVID-19 crisis in the UK is the most serious science policy failure in a generation."

 

Hancock and Johnson had their first discussion together about the virus on January 7. The government's crisis committee, COBRA, would meet several times over the following weeks and the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies started crunching the numbers. The government knew a threat existed but did it fully understand just how bad it could get?

 

By March 12 a full-scale outbreak had taken hold in Italy and the illness was spreading across Europe. More than 1000 Italians had already died and thousands more were gravely ill in packed hospitals in the country's hard-hit north. The deadly potential of an invisible killer was becoming more obvious by the hour.

 

That day, Johnson announced Britain would move from the "contain" phase of the emergency to the "delay" phase. This decision would prove a pivotal moment. The shift meant contact tracing would be abandoned, and testing would be restricted to those only in hospital with symptoms. The move was at odds with the WHO, which urged countries to "test, test, test", as well as Germany's much-lauded program of mass testing.

 

The Prime Minister warned at the March 12 press conference that the "worst public health crisis for a generation" was about to hit the country and that "many more families are going to lose loved ones before their time".

 

What he did not announce was a lockdown. Or anything close to it. Tougher measures would come but not yet, Johnson said, citing the need to introduce measures when they would have the most impact. But his chief scientific adviser also cast serious doubt on whether closing schools, banning mass gatherings or stopping international flights would ever be effective levers to pull.

 

Instead, Brits were encouraged to wash their hands and stay home for seven days if they had symptoms. Schools remained open, restaurants and bars traded as usual, and visitors were still allowed into care homes. Flights were arriving from mainland China, even though Australia had banned them six weeks earlier. Heaving public events were still allowed. A Champions League match in Liverpool drew a crowd of 52,000, about 3000 of whom came from Madrid, where a partial lockdown was already in force. More than 250,000 tickets were sold for the Cheltenham horse racing festival. Both events are now being investigated by health officials who suspect they may have contributed to the rapid spread of the disease in the areas surrounding the venues.

 

By March 16, the government's advice abruptly strengthened. People were told to stay away from pubs, theatres and clubs, to avoid non-essential travel and to work from home if possible, although the orders were not yet mandatory.

 

Why the sudden change? The government had just been handed a bombshell piece of research by scientists from Imperial College London warning that taking a light-touch approach to the virus would cause 250,000 deaths in Britain and overwhelm the National Health Service (NHS). Any hope of defeating the virus by building "herd immunity" in the community was smashed. The only way to prevent 250,000 deaths was through draconian measures, the researchers concluded.

 

Even then, Johnson would not put Britain into lockdown until one week later on March 23. By that point, many other European countries with a much smaller death toll had already been locked down.

 

Says David Hunter, an Australian-educated professor of epidemiology and medicine at the University of Oxford: "It's very easy in hindsight to state the obvious, which is that the lockdown came too late.

 

"The British response so far is not a model to follow. It has one of the worst epidemics in Europe and the world. That may have happened anyway. There's no way to know for sure, but some aspects of the response have almost certainly contributed to the high mortality."

 

A former Australian high commissioner to Britain, Mike Rann, says crucial mistakes were made right when they had the most damaging impact: "The earliest stages were handled negligently," Rann says. "A shambles of mixed messaging, poor organisation and a complacent attitude that what was happening in Italy wouldn't happen here."

 

Hunter says border closures in Australia and New Zealand stood in stark contrast to Britain, which only briefly imposed restrictions on people flying in from Wuhan. Even today, the few passengers still arriving in Britain are under no obligation to self-isolate.

 

"Good public health practice would be to, if not close the borders, then at least have some sort of mandatory self-isolation for people coming in during the very early stages of the pandemic," Hunter says.

 

"The reasons why the UK did not do it are unclear. Australia, albeit at a different stage of the epidemic, has been highly successful in closing its border, as has New Zealand, and that has almost certainly played a role in the much much lower number of cases."

 

Arrivals at Heathrow Airport were half what they normally were in March but still, 3.1 million landed there over the month. Nearly half a million came from the Asia-Pacific; 875,000 were from the European Union, and 711,000 came from North America.

 

Home Secretary Priti Patel supported a ban on travellers who had been in hotspots but was slapped down by Downing Street, which cited scientific advice that doing so would have little impact on the spread of the infection. When this spat was under way, Australia's borders had already been closed for a week to all foreign travellers. Australia banned flights from China as early as February 1.

 

The decision on March 12 to abandon mass testing meant the government could only guess who was infected with the virus and how it was behaving. Government experts at one point estimated as many as 55,000 people had contracted coronavirus, even though there were just 2000 confirmed cases. The extent of its spread would not become obvious until hospitals started to fill with seriously ill patients.

 

Of the few tests that were available, the results were initially processed by a small number of government-run laboratories. Private sector labs and universities offered to help but now say they were given the cold shoulder before the government eventually embraced them as the answer to ramping up testing.

 

Nobel prize-winning geneticist Sir Paul Nurse told the BBC's Question Time program that testing was "absolutely critical and hasn't been handled properly".

 

"We know that with this particular disease, you can be infected and have no symptoms. Now, this makes absolutely no sense. We were allowing, potentially, for front-line workers to be on the wards, potentially infecting people, because we weren't testing."

 

Nurse, who is the director of Britain’s largest biomedical research lab, the Francis Crick Institute, likens the addition of private facilities to the flotilla of small boats that rescued British soldiers from the beaches of Dunkirk and says their call-up was long overdue.

 

One of the strongest critics of the testing system has been Jeremy Hunt, the health secretary under former prime ministers David Cameron and Theresa May. Piers Morgan, a polarising morning television presenter and former tabloid newspaper editor, repeatedly mauled government ministers on his Good Morning Britain program about the deficiencies.

 

Under pressure, Hancock announced a plan to lift the number of tests conducted each day to 100,000 by the end of April. He achieved it − sort of. The government reported 122,000 tests on April 30. The devil is always in the detail, though: about 40,000 were tests mailed to people but not yet returned to labs for results. Regardless, Hancock's ambitious goal has transformed Britain's approach to testing and, if sustained, it will make it one of the world's most prolific testers. The government is also hiring 18,000 "contact tracers" by the middle of May.

 

Despite the recent surge, those early delays mean Britain has conducted just 10.13 tests per 1000 people, the lowest rate in western Europe. Italy's rate is 32.73, Ireland's is 31 and Germany's is 30.4.

 

Australia's testing effort has been double the relative size of Britain's, despite having a far less serious outbreak. And for all the criticism of the US response to the crisis, the rate of testing there never fell below the rate in Britain in April.

 

In his first address from Downing Street after his own battle with the virus, Johnson said the government was determined to fix the "challenges" that "have been so knotty and infuriating".

 

"I’m not going to minimise the logistical problems we have faced in getting the right protective gear to the right people at the right time, both in the NHS and in care homes. Or the frustrations that we have experienced in expanding the numbers of tests."

 

The additional testing capacity has allowed the government to get a better grip on the unfolding toll in Britain's care homes. It was previously flying blind. Only three weeks ago, even symptomatic care home residents and staff did not qualify for a test. For many weeks, patients were discharged from hospitals and into care homes without being tested to check whether they would be taking a deadly virus to a place where it could unleash havoc.

 

The Office for National Statistics, which compiles death data based on whether COVID-19 was mentioned on death certificates − believes 4343 care home residents died in England alone in the fortnight ending April 24. In the week ending April 17, 7316 people died in care homes from all causes. This was 2389 more deaths than the week before and almost double the week before that.

 

Care home deaths were not added to Britain's official death toll until late last week, and the true extent of the loss is still unclear. In early March, Johnson and his team spoke of "shielding" care home residents during the worst of the epidemic. They have since failed, but are not alone: all badly affected countries in Europe have experienced a wave of death in care homes.

 

While the Prime Minister has enjoyed a sharp rise in his personal approval ratings since the outbreak began, polling firm Ipsos MORI has recorded a "significant rise" in the number of people that think the government acted too late. Two weeks ago, 57 per cent felt that way but that figure now stands at 66 per cent.

 

Johnson and Hancock have been keen to stress that Britain has passed through the peak of the virus without the NHS being overwhelmed, pointing to a massive and rapid expansion in capacity and the early purchase of thousands of ventilators.

 

Chief Medical Officer Chris Whitty says the only way to truly compare Britain's response will be once the pandemic has run its course not just in Britain but in other countries that may yet experience serious outbreaks.

 

"We are nowhere near the end of this epidemic. There is a very long way to run for every country in the world on this and I think let's not go charging in to who's won and who's lost."

 

 

SaE

[Gojko & Stojko]

 

Dodatak na prethodni post, Irska je pandemijom više pogođena nego UK (po glavi stanovnika), u samom vrhu je po broju zaraženih, 4039 na milion (ispred su samo Luksemburg, Island i Katar, sve dosta manje zemlje),u  UK ima 2535 zaraženih na milion.

 

Međutim, Irci su dosad uradili znatno više testova od UK (31 hiljadu naspram nešto više od 13 hiljada na milion stanovnika), a smrtnost u odnosu na broj zaraženih im je 6% u odnosu na britanskih (uključujući Severnu Irsku) preko 15%. Tako da je gornja izjava Krisa Vitija čist cinizam i bežanje od odgovornosti.

 

SaE

[iDemo]

Nadam se da nije dupikat, ne?

Nobel prize winning scientist Prof Michael Levitt: lockdown is a “huge mistake”

 

[borris_]

6 hours ago, Host said:

Oni nisu sproveli cak ni bazicno istrazivanje nego (izgleda mi na osnovu clanka) retrospektivnu analizu. Dosta neozbiljno.

 

U tvitu kaze da u dosadasnjem toku istrazivanja nisu imali ozbiljnije stetne efekte medju ispitanicima sa dozom leka koju koriste u istrazivanju. Ne kaze bas nista o korisnosti leka jer je istrazivanje u toku.

 

Ovo istrazivanje iz Borisovog tvita je zanimljivo jer testira da li male doze chloroquina mogu spreciti zarazu ukoliko se administriraju preventivno, kao i da li pomazu da se spreci pogorsanje stanja pacijenta ako se lek prepise u ranom stadijumu infekcije. Zanimljivo je da ova grupa naucnika misli da chloroquine nema smisla davati tezim bolesnicima. 

 

Iz istrazivanja su izuzeti srcani i bubrezni bolesnici. 

 

 

Ova rezutati u Senegalu su preliminarni. Po ovom tekstu i po drugim nisam shvatio kao i ti, nego da su radili test na 181 pacijenta podjeljena u 3 grupe i svaka grupa je imala drugačiji protokol stim da je grupa hidroksiklorokin+antibiotik brojala najmanje pacijenata. I da, nije sprovedeno kako se kaže "double aveugle" istraživanje (Ako sam dobro čitao izmedju linija).

Ovdje fali da se vidi kompozicije grupa jer za sada je ovo samo izjava ovog liječnika. 

Neki su već napali studiji uspoređujući starosnu piramidu Senegala i Francuske ali ova studija je nešto sasvim drugo. Po ovom profesoru, lijek ili kombinacija lijekova ubrzava smanjenje količine virusa u tijelu i samim tim izlazak iz bolnice.

Senegal od početka koristi ovaj lijek, plaquenil. 

Ako sam nešto naučio u mojim putovanjima po afrički, to je da afrički ljekari odlični u dijagnostici malarije i naročito znaju kako se upotrebljavaju i doziraju ti lijekovi, po iskustvu rekao bih mnogo bolje nego ljekari koji nemaju potrebu da se bi te protiv malarije. I sam sam se liječio od malarije tamo i sjećam se da su mi davali injekcije tačno dozirane (imao jako malo parazita u tijelu pa je doza bila mala) na svakih 6h (ni manje ni vise). Kada sam kasnije otišao u Institut Pasteur na provjeru, objasnili su mi šta su paraziti malarije i da sam sigurno imao najbolje ljekare tamo gdje sam bio jer oni sve znaju o tom parazitu i kako se upotrebljavaju i doziraju lijekovi 

 

Ovo drugo istraživanje jeste zanimljivo i vrijedi pročitati linku u tvitu. Meni je zanimljivo ovo što je napisao u tvitu o sekundarnim efektima. Kao što sam već pisao jako mi je čudna ova kampanja o toksičnosti lijeka jer sam i sam koristio lijek na bazi klorokina prvo poslije preporuke ljekara (kada sam išao prvi put) a poslije bez ikakvog uputa jer se prodavao slobodno. Nikad mi nisu tražili EKG ili nešto slično. Naravno da sam znao da ga ne treba predozirati i izbjegavao sam ga uzimati više od mjesec dana.

Inače doza koju kaže da koriste u jednom od tvitova (800mg prvi put pa 600mg 6h-8h poslije pa 600mg sledeća 4 dana, znači 5 dana ukupno) je veća nego što ekipa Dr Raoult-a upotrebljava (6 dana X 600mg).

 

Within the normal FDA dose ranges. 800mg load as in malaria, 600mg 6-8 hrs later, then 600mg daily x 5 days in total. No azithromycin as this is an outpatient trial.

 

Il l'a administré pour la première fois le 16 mars 2020 à 20 patients malades de son service à raison de 600 mg d'hydroxychloroquine par jour associés à de l'azithromycine (antibiotique de la famille des macrolides). Six jours après,...[\quote]

 

 

 

[Gojko & Stojko]

3 hours ago, iDemo said:

Nobel prize winning scientist Prof Michael Levitt: lockdown is a “huge mistake”

Kakav majstor, sad samo da ubedi Marfija i ScoMoa da su se zajedno sa Izraelcima i Austrijancima zajebali, šta zna dete šta je par hiljada mrtvih kod Šveđana (desetina hiljada kod Britanaca), to su ionako tuđi roditelji i babe i dede.

 

Još jedan Dr. Strejndžlav "Mein Fuhrer, I can walk" nakon što objasni kako će da prežive pod zemljom sa jel'te, dobro obdarenim devojkama ne bi li produžili vrstu.

 

SaE

[vememah]

 

[iDemo]

1 hour ago, Gojko & Stojko said:

Dr. Strejndžlav "Mein Fuhrer, I can walk"

izbacio covek izvestaj jos 14/aprila:

 

 

[Dankan Ajdaho]

57 minutes ago, vememah said:

 

 

Znači cirka 2 miliona ljudi...

[borris_]

Ne razumjem, je li 12,3 ili 19,9?

 

Jos su daleko od globalnog imuniteta (60 do 80 posto valjda).

[Ivo Petović]

19,9 je NYC, 12,3 je state.