COVID-19 | science, damage limitation, NO POLITICS

[Manoli]

Confusion reigns.

Gilead Sciences treated 397 severely ill coronavirus patients with its Ebola antiviral REMDESIVIR. Regardless of whether they were treated for five or 10 days, more than half of the patients were discharged from the hospital within 14 days. After the announcement Gilead's stocks were halted ahead of trading on the NYSE

Leaked data from the WHO suggested last week that the drug had 'failed'.
Market shenanigans or a break through ?


Edit:
From a quick google search:
Gilead is now testing the drug in a further 5,600 patients at 180 locations for the next stage including in the US, the UK, China, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Italy, Japan Korea, the Netherlands, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and Taiwan. The company expects to report results on the first 600 patients involved by the end of May.

So, none the wiser ... yet.

[Paulo Bizarro]

Henrique Veiga Fernandes is a Portuguese imunologist researcher that works in the Instituto Champalimuad, a forefront medical cancer research centre in Portugal. He was awarded a grant by the Chan Zuckerberg foundation for his work.

He gave an interview to a newspaper today where he describes the work that his team is doing for Covid-19: they are carrying both virological and serogical tests in several samples of the population, including hospital workers. The results so far indicate that 4 out of 5 people do not develop symptoms.

Article is in Portuguese

https://www.dn.pt/vida-e-futuro/henrique-veiga-fernandes-um-premio-de-zuckerberg-e-a-luta-contra-a-covid-19-12131522.html

[KLaban]

News from the BMJ of a new antibody test claiming to be 99% accurate.

https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1742

[armand]

Confusion reigns.

Gilead Sciences treated 397 severely ill coronavirus patients with its Ebola antiviral REMDESIVIR. Regardless of whether they were treated for five or 10 days, more than half of the patients were discharged from the hospital within 14 days. After the announcement Gilead's stocks were halted ahead of trading on the NYSE

Leaked data from the WHO suggested last week that the drug had 'failed'.
Market shenanigans or a break through ?

As far as I can see this is just a press release of a preliminary result. I would like to see the actual data/study. As a rule of thumb you should doubt any manufacturer sponsored study until proven otherwise.

So far the data on remdesivir is inconsistent.

[Manoli]

NYT feed:

The F.D.A. plans to announce as early as Wednesday an emergency use authorization for remdesivir, an experimental antiviral drug that is being tested in treating patients with Covid-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus, according to a senior administration official.

A federal trial has shown that treatment with remdesivir can speed recovery in patients infected with the coronavirus, Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said on Wednesday. The drug, made by Gilead Sciences, could eventually become the first approved treatment for Covid-19, the illness caused by the coronavirus.

An emergency authorization by the F.D.A. is not the same as a formal drug approval by the agency. When the federal government declares a public health emergency, the F.D.A. can approve certain drugs or tests to address the emergency if there are no other alternatives. That is the case with the coronavirus, since no drugs have been proven to be effective against the virus.

[...]

But the disclosure of trial results in a political setting, before peer review or publication, is very unusual, said Dr. Steven Nissen, a cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic who has conducted dozens of clinical trials.  “Where are the data?”  he asked. Scientists will need to see figures on harms associated with the drug in order to assess its benefits, he added.

“This is too important to be handled in such a sloppy fashion,” Dr. Nissen said.

[John Camp]

If I were the feds (which I'm not) (and I'm not even sure the feds are the feds in the Trump administration) I'd keep a close eye on insider trading at Gilead. That report, which seemed very thin to me, suggested that there might be some small effect in using remdesivir, and yet it moved the market by more than 500 points on the Dow, and Gilead stock by some $6 a share between the close Tuesday night and the high point Wednesday.

[Alan Klein]

Well, no, firstly, I am not claiming it, the world is from figures published by each country.
Secondly you can not die of Corona Virus unless you have been tested for Corona virus.
Even if everything you are saying is true, 2.6% is still about three times a good result.
But if you don't think that you have a problem that's fine.

The purpose of my post was not to brag about the 2 1/2% death rate that I estimated.  It was to debunk your claim that 30% of New Yorkers who got the disease died from it, a totally fabricated number that the you should have known is not valid unless you compare to what the general populations's infection rate is. Just repeating someone else's phoney statistics doesn't make your claim valid. It also weakens your arguments in other areas.

[Alan Klein]

If I were the feds (which I'm not) (and I'm not even sure the feds are the feds in the Trump administration) I'd keep a close eye on insider trading at Gilead. That report, which seemed very thin to me, suggested that there might be some small effect in using remdesivir, and yet it moved the market by more than 500 points on the Dow, and Gilead stock by some $6 a share between the close Tuesday night and the high point Wednesday.

That's the first thing I thought of.  They're hyping the news. I hope I'm wrong.  We certainly need some luck in finding a cure. But something smells.

[BobShaw]

The purpose of my post was not to brag about the 2 1/2% death rate that I estimated.  It was to debunk your claim that 30% of New Yorkers who got the disease died from it, a totally fabricated number that the you should have known is not valid unless you compare to what the general populations's infection rate is. Just repeating someone else's phoney statistics doesn't make your claim valid. It also weakens your arguments in other areas.

I never claimed anything of the sort. I never mentioned New York anywhere. You make up stuff.
What I quoted are published figures. You don't believe the figures from Russia, China or any other country so why would you believe the US ones either.

All I stated was that of the people who have been a Covid case, which means they have tested positive, that 30% died.
If they were tested on their death bed then that would explain it. At one stage it was even higher.

[LesPalenik]

I never claimed anything of the sort. I never mentioned New York anywhere. You make up stuff.
What I quoted are published figures. You don't believe the figures from Russia, China or any other country so why would you believe the US ones either.

All I stated was that of the people who have been a Covid case, which means they have tested positive, that 30% died.
If they were tested on their death bed then that would explain it. At one stage it was even higher.

The official virus stats from Russia, China and Iran are not credible.
The USA reports may be honest, but due to limited testing not complete. According to some sources, the actual numbers are several times higher.

[kers]

News from the BMJ of a new antibody test claiming to be 99% accurate.

https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1742

The test identifies the IgG antibody, which appears in the late stages of infection and remains for some time after the person has recovered. However, Abbott said that it was looking to expand its range to tests to include the detection of the IgM antibody, which is the first antibody to appear during the infection.

Good, cheap and fast tests as well as a vaccin will make life more simple.
I can imagine a corona test will become mandantory for travelers across countries in the coming period.

[jeremyrh]

All I stated was that of the people who have been a Covid case, which means they have tested positive, that 30% died.
If they were tested on their death bed then that would explain it. At one stage it was even higher.

I think that figure of around 30% refers to people admitted to hospital.

[Alan Klein]

I think that figure of around 30% refers to people admitted to hospital.

That statistic I can live with.  The original poster used a biased statistic that made it seem that in America 30% of the people who caught the disease died.  Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

[Manoli]

If I were the feds (which I'm not) (and I'm not even sure the feds are the feds in the Trump administration) I'd keep a close eye on insider trading at Gilead ...

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Concerns over leaks compelled the top U.S. infectious disease official to reveal data on Gilead Sciences Inc’s experimental drug remdesivir, the first in a scientifically rigorous clincial trial to show benefit in treating COVID-19. The dramatic announcement by Dr Anthony Fauci in the Oval Office on Wednesday prompted concerns among scientists that the Trump administration was raising hopes about a coronavirus treatment before sharing the full data with researchers.

Gilead has a market cap over $100billion. They're executing a large testing program (see above), prima facie the insider trading suspicion has meri but unlikely. Looking at the chronology from Tuesday market close to Wednesday , it seems more plausible that someone leant on Fauci. To say they went public because they feared a leak (the leak had already happened Tuesday and wasn't even in Gileads interest) is implausible.

[armand]

That statistic I can live with.  The original poster used a biased statistic that made it seem that in America 30% of the people who caught the disease died.  Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Alan, did you consider it's not the statistics that are the problem but your reading skills and own biases?

I missed the initial post but I looked now: it says on the top, closed cases. That means from those tested and who either recovered or died, 30% died. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't take into account those on who we don't know what happened or are still fighting it, it doesn't take into account those who got the disease but didn't get tested.

This particular stat is incomplete (and therefore not very useful) but it's not biased, the only bias here it's yours. Your bias is that every statistics is biased so you don't even bother to understand what it actually says.


And please don't reply with the same thing over again, discussing with you it's like living in Groundhog Day.

[Alan Klein]

Henrique Veiga Fernandes is a Portuguese imunologist researcher that works in the Instituto Champalimuad, a forefront medical cancer research centre in Portugal. He was awarded a grant by the Chan Zuckerberg foundation for his work.

He gave an interview to a newspaper today where he describes the work that his team is doing for Covid-19: they are carrying both virological and serogical tests in several samples of the population, including hospital workers. The results so far indicate that 4 out of 5 people do not develop symptoms.

Article is in Portuguese

https://www.dn.pt/vida-e-futuro/henrique-veiga-fernandes-um-premio-de-zuckerberg-e-a-luta-contra-a-covid-19-12131522.html

That high rate of no symptoms makes sense.  NYC did a random test of 3000 New Yorkers and found 25% tested positive.  Based on that, it would mean over 2 million New Yorkers have been exposed.  I think we're going to find that this disease has been very distributed through the community and that the death rate is much lower based on the rate of infections.  It may not reach the low rate of regular seasonal flu.  But it's going to be a lot lower than many have claimed.

[chez]

That high rate of no symptoms makes sense.  NYC did a random test of 3000 New Yorkers and found 25% tested positive.  Based on that, it would mean over 2 million New Yorkers have been exposed.  I think we're going to find that this disease has been very distributed through the community and that the death rate is much lower based on the rate of infections.  It may not reach the low rate of regular seasonal flu.  But it's going to be a lot lower than many have claimed.

But what is the death rate of the seasonal flu and how does one determine that? Many people that have the flu just stay home and eat chicken noodle soup. I fail to see how we can get any accuracy as far as death rates go with the seasonal flu.

[Alan Klein]

Alan, did you consider it's not the statistics that are the problem but your reading skills and own biases?

I missed the initial post but I looked now: it says on the top, closed cases. That means from those tested and who either recovered or died, 30% died. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't take into account those on who we don't know what happened or are still fighting it, it doesn't take into account those who got the disease but didn't get tested.

This particular stat is incomplete (and therefore not very useful) but it's not biased, the only bias here it's yours. Your bias is that every statistics is biased so you don't even bother to understand what it actually says.


And please don't reply with the same thing over again, discussing with you it's like living in Groundhog Day.

His statistics lack credibility.  Here's his post.

"2275 today. The number of deaths vs recoveries is very high in the US at 30% whereas about 19% in the world and 1% in the countries doing well.
So that (to me anyway) would indicate a lack of early treatment."

As of April 30, total worldwide statistics are 3.2 million cases, 1 million recovered, 228K died.  In the US death rate is 5.86% on 1.03M confirmed and 61K dead.  Russia has a death rate of 1% (.98%) but we know their statistics are BS.  So for him to claim there are some countries with 1% without telling us who,(I'm sure there are other little countries with inaccurate statistics as well) is to paint a cherry picked picture.   Where did he get the 30% figure?  It also would be helpful if he provided the link to his statistic's data so we can analyze for ourselves.  His "opinion" that the statistics indicate a lack of early treatment is questionable.  What does that even mean?  That people waited to go to the hospital when they were practically dead?  Or because medical services in the US are poor, a condition I doubt very much compared to the rest of the world.  Frankly. I'm not surprised you would sign off on the questionable accuracies of these statistics without doing some due diligence.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1087466/covid19-cases-recoveries-deaths-worldwide/

[Alan Klein]

But what is the death rate of the seasonal flu and how does one determine that? Many people that have the flu just stay home and eat chicken noodle soup. I fail to see how we can get any accuracy as far as death rates go with the seasonal flu.

Sampling is one possibility.  If you do random testing of a population to see if they have antibodies which would mean they had the disease, you can determine an estimate of the percentage for the entire population.  It's like polling.

The worse recent seasonal flu was two years ago in the 2017-2018 season. These high numbers occurred despite there was a flu vaccine and medicine superior to what Covid 19 has. 

Seasonal influenza (flu)
Symptomatic illnesses 45,000,000   
Medical visits   21,000,000   
Hospitalizations   810,000   
Deaths   61,000   (In the last five years, seasonal flu has killed over 200,000 Americans without a single plant being closed)
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/past-seasons.html

[Jonathan Cross]

There is certainly variation in the basis of the statistics.  In the UK, hospital admissions and deaths were the main source, then it was realised that care homes should be included.  From yesterday they are included as there are people affected and dying in care homes without going to hospital.  I think some other countries are realising the same.

It is not good to compare stats unless they have the same basis.

Jonathan