Survey Results: Where Are All the Sick People? — Watts Up With That?

The “Where Are All the Sick People?” survey has had nearly 3000 participants since its inception at 10 a.m. EST. Three questions were posed to illuminate the issue of the effects of the SARS-CoV-2, which is causing the current Covid-19 Pandemic, on the readers of this blog, WUWT.

Survey Results: Where Are All the Sick People? — Watts Up With That?

BOTTOM LINES:

  1. If you don’t know any people sick with/from Covid-19 you having the same Covid-19 experience as the vast majority of other people – at least according to this somewhat unscientific survey.
  2. If you don’t know anyone who has died, or only one or maybe two, you are again having the same experience as almost everyone else.
  3. While most of us don’t know anyone who has died from/with Covid-19, we probably know someone who does know someone who has sadly lost a family member or acquaintance during the ongoing pandemic.
  4. Opinions vary wildly on the subject of Governmental Responses to the pandemic.  It will be years before the historians, sociologists, medial researchers, and others sort out the quagmire of mistakes that have been made at all levels of governance.

Lockdowns as a Political Tragedy of the Commons

Several of the leading European countries are now in the process of implementing a second wave of social and economic lockdowns in the face of new and a rising number of cases of the coronavirus. After bringing their societies to near total halts in the spring of 2020 with lockdowns and shutdowns in the name of “flattening the curve” to not overwhelm medical facilities and, hopefully, stop any further spread of the virus, this new increase in cases has brought about a repeat of the same governmental response: prohibit many human contacts by closing or restricting business activities and ordering people to stay at home.

Source: Lockdowns as a Political Tragedy of the Commons

Peer reviewed hydroxychloroquine study

Conclusion: Early treatment of COVID-19 in high risk patients with “The Zelenko Protocol” decreased hospitalizations by 84% and resulted in a 5 fold reduction in death.

New York, NY. October 27, 2020 – Dr. Vladimir Zelenko and team announced today that a retrospective study analyzing his patient data was accepted for publication after a rigorous peer review process.1 The study finds that early intervention and treatment of high-risk patients with COVID-19 resulted in significantly fewer hospitalizations and deaths. The treatment consisting of zinc, low-dose hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, is also referred to as “The Zelenko Protocol.”

This study is unique because only HIGH RISK out-patients were treated with the triple-drug regimen.  High-risk patients are those that have a 5% to 10% chance of dying from COVID-19.  This category includes patients who are older than 60, who are younger than 60 but have other medical issues, or who have trouble breathing.  All identified high-risk outpatients were treated at their initial visit, most within the first five days of the onset of symptoms. All of these patients had laboratory confirmation of COVID-19 infection.

The results show that in 141 high risk patients who were treated in the prehospital setting with the triple therapy, only 2.8% (4/141) were hospitalized compared to 15.4% of an untreated control group (58/377) (odds ratio 0.16, 95% CI 0.06-0.5; p<0.001). Only 0.71% (1/141) patients died in the treatment group, versus 3.5% (13/377) in the untreated group (odds ratio 0.2, 95% CI 0.03-1.5; p=0.12). 

This retrospective analysis is the product of the unique collaboration of three doctors with a rare synergy of industry, academia and clinical medicine. Dr. Roland Derwand is a German physician and life science industry expert. Professor Martin Scholz is an independent consultant and adjunct professor for experimental medicine at Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany. Drs. Derwand and Scholz were the first to draw attention to “The Zelenko Protocol” in their published hypothesis paper about the importance of combining zinc with hydroxychloroquine as a method for treating COVID-19. 

“What differentiates this study is that patients were diagnosed very early with COVID-19 in an outpatient setting, and only high-risk patients were treated early on,” said Dr. Derwand. “Unfortunately, we seem to have forgotten common medical knowledge – that we want to treat any patient with an infectious disease as soon as possible. Dr. Zelenko treated his high-risk patients immediately with the three drug regimen to ensure sufficient efficacy.  He correctly didn’t wait for the disease to further develop.” 

Following the rigorous peer review process, Dr. Zelenko said: “It’s unfortunate that much of the media coverage surrounding hydroxychloroquine has been negative. These three medications are affordable, available in pill form, and work in synergy against COVID-19.” According to Dr. Zelenko: “Hydroxychloroquine’s main role is to allow zinc to enter the cell and inhibit the virus’ reproduction. And azithromycin prevents secondary bacterial infection in the lungs, and reduces the risk of pulmonary complications.” 

The third author, Professor Scholz added: “This is the first study with COVID-19 outpatients that shows how a simple-to-perform outpatient risk stratification allows for rapid treatment decisions shortly after onset of symptoms. The well-tolerated 5-day triple therapy resulted in a significantly lower hospitalization rate and less fatalities with no reported cardiac side effects compared with relevant public reference data of untreated patients. The magnitude of the results can substantially elevate the relevance of early use, low-dose hydroxychloroquine, especially in combination with zinc. This data can be used to inform ongoing pandemic response policies as well as future clinical trials.”

Especially as vaccines will still not be available during the currently ongoing second wave of the pandemic a broader use of the Zelenko protocol to treat positively risk stratified COVID-19 outpatients as early as possible seem to represent a so far underestimated additional option to win today’s battle against COVID-19.

Press Release – Google Docs

Media Hoaxes: No, Sturgis Was Not A ‘Superspreader Event,” And No, It Did Not Cost ‘Public Health $12.2 Billion’

Gov. Kristi Noem: “This report isn’t science; it’s fiction. Under the guise of academic research, this report is nothing short of an attack on those who exercised their personal freedom to attend Sturgis” The post Media Hoaxes: No, Sturgis Was Not A ‘Superspreader Event,” And No, It Did Not Cost ‘Public Health .2 Billion’ first appeared on Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion .

Source: Media Hoaxes: No, Sturgis Was Not A ‘Superspreader Event,” And No, It Did Not Cost ‘Public Health $12.2 Billion’

Why is the COVID death rate so low in Africa?

Well, it could just be poor statistics-taking and reporting. But apparently the death rate has not gone up, either, and a rise in that would be more noticeable. So it seems the low rate of (and/or better prognosis from) COVID in much of Africa is real.

….

Could it be, could it possibly be – the widespread use of hydroxychloroquine?

You’d never know from this article that such a thing is even a possibility. The Science article discusses the data from Africa – it’s even titled “The pandemic appears to have spared Africa so far. Scientists are struggling to explain why” – but nary a whisper about the drug.

Is the drug already widely taken in African countries where malaria is endemic? I’ve been trying to discover whether that is the case, and I’m hesitant to say it is because I read somewhere, months ago, that malaria in Africa became resistant to the drug some years ago and so it’s no longer all that widely used there. I can’t seem to find that information at the moment.

Source: Why is the COVID death rate so low in Africa?

Medical Research’s Cross of ‘Gold’ Imperils Covid Treatments

Randomized controlled studies have advantages, but there are other valuable sources of data.

….

As Thomas Frieden, who directed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention under Mr. Obama, wrote in a 2017 New England Journal of Medicine article: “Elevating RCTs at the expense of other potentially highly valuable sources of data is counterproductive.” Such limitations affect their use for “urgent health issues, such as infectious disease outbreaks.” He added: “No study design is flawless, and conflicting findings can emerge from all types of studies.”

Two randomized trials of Gilead’s antiviral drug remdesivir show how such studies can produce inconclusive results. A randomized trial in China, published in the Lancet in May, enrolled 237 patients. The study found no significant clinical benefit over a placebo, but most of the patients were severely ill when treated. Patients who had symptoms for 10 or fewer days, however, were 25% less likely to die. Similarly, a randomized National Institutes of Health trial with 1,063 patients found the drug reduced average recovery time by four days and the risk of death by 30%, but the survival benefit was statistically insignificant.

Some experts have dismissed the antimalarial hydroxychloroquine, or HCQ, even though more than a dozen observational studies have found it beneficial. A retrospective observational study of Covid-infected nursing-home residents in France, for instance, found those treated with HCQ and azithromycin were 40% less likely to die.

But a few randomized controlled trials found no benefit. A Spanish randomized trial of HCQ for prophylaxis found it didn’t reduce risk of illness among a large group of people exposed in nursing homes, households and health-care settings. Yet two-thirds of the subjects “reported routine use of masks at the time of exposure,” so they were probably less likely to be infected. Nursing-home residents, who may be less likely to wear masks, were 50% less likely to become sick if they took HCQ. But this finding was statistically insignificant, because the trial included only 293 residents.

Source: Medical Research’s Cross of ‘Gold’ Imperils Covid Treatments

Early treatment with hydroxychloroquine: a country-based analysis

Source

From the FAQ:

Why should we trust @CovidAnalysis? There is no need to. We provide organization and analysis, but all sources are public and you can easily verify everything. For the country-based analysis, all data is public and the analysis is simple to replicate. We also note that many equally qualified experts report contradictory conclusions. If you don’t like our analysis, you can use our database to locate information you may have missed for your own research.

FAQ

It’s also available as a 65-page PDF file.