Another statistician critiques the Stanford Santa Clara study - doesn't pull too many punches either. So many agendas at play too - saw a video discussing the study and apparently one of the authors wrote a puff piece in the Washington Post and didn't disclose his connection to the research. Not disclosing COI is more than a tad dodgy.
https://statmodeling.stat.columbia....-in-stanford-study-of-coronavirus-prevalence/
If you're interested, the video I watched is below. Discussion of the study starts at around 6 mins.Its what we have come to expect from political contamination.
Science becomes another paramour.
D.
Thanks Indy, I'll look at that later.If you're interested, the video I watched is below. Discussion of the study starts at around 6 mins.
Another statistician critiques the Stanford Santa Clara study - doesn't pull too many punches either. So many agendas at play too - saw a video discussing the study and apparently one of the authors wrote a puff piece in the Washington Post and didn't disclose his connection to the research. Not disclosing COI is more than a tad dodgy.
https://statmodeling.stat.columbia....-in-stanford-study-of-coronavirus-prevalence/
Hi All,
Anyone able to unpick the mathematics below? My poor wee brain simply isn't up to grasping it, so if anyone can do a Maths Translation for Dummies, I would be very grateful!
Aseem Malhotra referenced a study in this article https://www.europeanscientist.com/en/article-of-the-week/covid-19-and-the-elephant-in-the-room/
He made the statement that
Public Health England have said now is the best time to quit smoking, citing research from China concluding that smokers were 14 times more likely to get severe disease after contracting COVID-19. (13)
So I followed his reference to here:
https://journals.lww.com/cmj/Abstra...f_factors_associated_with_disease.99363.aspx#
and found this:
Seventy-eight patients with COVID-19-induced pneumonia met the inclusion criteria and were included in this study. Efficacy evaluation at 2 weeks after hospitalization indicated that 11 patients (14.1%) had deteriorated, and 67 patients (85.9%) had improved/stabilized. The patients in the progression group were significantly older than those in the disease improvement/stabilization group (66 [51, 70] vs. 37 [32, 41] years, U = 4.932, P = 0.001). The progression group had a significantly higher proportion of patients with a history of smoking than the improvement/stabilization group (27.3% vs. 3.0%, χ2 = 9.291, P = 0.018). For all the 78 patients, fever was the most common initial symptom, and the maximum body temperature at admission was significantly higher in the progression group than in the improvement/stabilization group (38.2 [37.8, 38.6] vs. 37.5 [37.0, 38.4]°C, U = 2.057, P = 0.027). Moreover, the proportion of patients with respiratory failure (54.5% vs. 20.9%, χ2 = 5.611, P = 0.028) and respiratory rate (34 [18, 48] vs. 24 [16, 60] breaths/min, U = 4.030, P = 0.004) were significantly higher in the progression group than in the improvement/stabilization group. C-reactive protein was significantly elevated in the progression group compared to the improvement/stabilization group (38.9 [14.3, 64.8] vs. 10.6 [1.9, 33.1] mg/L, U = 1.315, P = 0.024). Albumin was significantly lower in the progression group than in the improvement/stabilization group (36.62 ± 6.60 vs. 41.27 ± 4.55 g/L, U = 2.843, P = 0.006). Patients in the progression group were more likely to receive high-level respiratory support than in the improvement/stabilization group (χ2 = 16.01, P = 0.001). Multivariate logistic analysis indicated that age (odds ratio [OR], 8.546; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.628–44.864; P = 0.011), history of smoking (OR, 14.285; 95% CI: 1.577–25.000; P = 0.018), maximum body temperature at admission (OR, 8.999; 95% CI: 1.036–78.147, P = 0.046), respiratory failure (OR, 8.772, 95% CI: 1.942–40.000; P = 0.016), albumin (OR, 7.353, 95% CI: 1.098–50.000; P = 0.003), and C-reactive protein (OR, 10.530; 95% CI: 1.224−34.701, P = 0.028) were risk factors for disease progression.
So, is Malhotra's statement that that smokers were 14 times more likely to get severe disease after contracting COVID-19
bourne out by the mathematical hieroglyphs quoted above?
I do, of course, appreciate that there is a lot of other stuff going on too - CRP, albumin, degree of temperature, age and all the other co-morbidities we are familiar with discussing regarding COVID-19.
Thanks Indy,Thanks Indy, I'll look at that later.
Regards
Derek
Then it is obviously men who are the superspreaders!NY Post news story (don't shoot the messenger)
https://nypost.com/2020/04/20/can-the-coronavirus-be-spread-through-farts/
Then it is obviously men who are the superspreaders!
Apparently the study has subsequently been retracted due to statistical errors.Wow, very interesting. I had up to now, thought Stanford had a very high reputation so I'm a little surprised to have my doubts confirmed.
Good article, thanks.
I've been really busy and am having a hard time catching up with all the links posted. Hope to catch up with you all tomorrow.
In this video, "quercetin as a zinc isonophore" is discussed, which is a possible alternative if hydroxychloroquine not available. Both are thought to work synergistically with zinc to slow replication of the coronavirus within the cell. Additionally, this doctor has created a resource page with lots of links studies and other information - (see video below; last 10 minutes summarizes some of the information presented).
From Healthline.com...
Quercetin is found naturally in many plant-based foods, particularly in the outer layer or peel (36).
Good food sources include (36, 37Trusted Source):
capers
peppers — yellow and green
onions — red and white
shallots
asparagus — cooked
cherries
tomatoes
red apples
red grapes
broccoli
kale
red leaf lettuce
berries — all types, such as cranberries, blueberries, and raspberries
tea — green and black
Note that the amount of quercetin in foods may depend on the conditions in which the food was grown. For example, organic tomatoes appear to have up to 79% more quercetin than commercially grown ones (38Trusted Source).
We have two options, live or die with coronavirus. We have got it for the duration.I watched the BBC news last night, I was my own and my heart just sank......................
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52389285
I watched the BBC news last night, I was my own and my heart just sank......................
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52389285
There are medical effects of just nicotine in a therapeutic setting.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/240820#effects
This was discussed a little further back in the thread ..
https://www.diabetes.co.uk/forum/th...ity-with-diabetes.171962/page-77#post-2249494
.....and I guess in reality it's no great surprise even though it is a little demoralising to hear 'experts' say it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?