Grande
3592
It doesn’t matter really, here’s why;
If you were to bathe the room with an appropriate sized UVC light it will kill viruses not only on the exposed surfaces but aerosols as well.
Probably take less than a minute.
This isn’t new, and it isn’t harmful to humans
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-21058-w#Abs1
I seem to remember it’s somewhere right around the 100-120nm range.
If it were passing as a dry particle it would matter but since it’s only airborne as an aerosol I don’t see why it would matter much.
Need more attention? Not interested.
4 Likes
GWH
3595
I heard yesterday that n-95’s weren’t good enough. You need an n-100 mask.
WuWei
3596
N100, 101 - whatever it takes.
2 Likes
Predictable, solely based on who was pitching this.
1 Like
From the article:
1,376 consecutive patients who showed up at the emergency room with symptoms of coronavirus.
So, it wasn’t confirmed that they actually had COVID-19, just symptoms. The symptoms of COVID-19 are characteristic of a number of lower respiratory tract infections, and even upper ones. Cough, fever, chills, etc.? Those are all symptoms of the SARS virus. Heck, I had a viral infection back in December where I had a dry cough, chills, some nausea, muscle weakness, but get this- no fever. Patients can have a combination of symptoms, but that doesn’t always translate to a particular disease. If they have the symptoms, a test should be done just to make sure it’s not anything else.
Of course, if you treat someone with a drug that is not meant for their illness, not only will you see side effects, but you will also see some major issues.
Not only that, but the sample size is pretty small. I would imagine the confidence interval isn’t very good on that one.
Life is hard, but it is harder if you are stupid.
1 Like
After a quick search on Google, the price of Hydrochloroquine is about $37. A brand new drug used to treat this specific disease would likely cost thousands by the time it comes out, due to research and administration costs. How do we know this isn’t profit-driven by big pharma?
The author of that article, Peter, I would like to know if he has hands in the pockets of big pharma.
1 Like
You should read the actual study. An inclusion criteria for the study was laboratory evidence of COVID-19. All treated patients were COVID-19 patients. The study was funded by the NIH. There is no evidence any of the authors have ties to pharmaceutical companies.
2 Likes
Okay. Thankyou for finding that.
Of the 1376 patients, 811 (58.9%) received hydroxychloroquine (median duration of treatment, 5 days) and 565 (41.1%) did not.
95% CI
This is actually a pretty good Confidence interval.
I find this suspicious because while it is a majority, it is a slim majority.
EDIT: I stand corrected about the confidence interval. Still got some questions, but for the most part, I stand corrected.
You wouldn’t want a majority in either the treatment or control arm. You would want even or statistically even when it comes to the two arms. They used propensity score matching to even out the two groups based on the amount of participants in each group and multiple other variables. The two groups were statistically similar enough at baseline to use propensity score analysis.
1 Like
No problem. Critically appraising data is not easy or straight forward. It was something we had classes on throughout all of medical school, continuing into residency. It was even a part of my board exams.
If you’re bored, here’s the latest version of the book I used during training.
2 Likes
One last thing. I have an older edition in printed form, but now a days I use the JAMA evidence based medicine text which is available online and should be free. Much easier to search it than pull out a text whenever I have questions.
Apparently you do.
There isn’t a fact anywhere you can cite that actually supports your position.
Every link provided refutes your claim entirely.
