Corona virus, Port and the AFL.

Status
Not open for further replies.

pastmyprimus

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 19, 2011
5,668
19,816
Too far from the heartland
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
" It is based on a retrospective analysis of medical records, not a controlled study in which patients are divided randomly into treatment groups "

Also the use is to use it early to either not get the virus or suppress it at the start
Observational studies are well accepted forms of research, especially where a treatment is considered to be potentially dangerous like this one. There are ethical considerations to take into account.

It's a peer reviewed study that's been published in the Lancet. The author is Mandeep Mehra, a Harvard Medical School professor and physician at Brigham and Women's Hospital.
 

pastmyprimus

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 19, 2011
5,668
19,816
Too far from the heartland
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
A drug prescribed for 65 years and one of the safest in use is suddenly a 50% death choice because Trump. This is where we are at during this, amazing.

It's impressive to be so fulll of hatred that a lot in the media and politicians bagging Trump have them themselves either been treated with it or had a relative treated with it for this virus. Amy Kloboucher comes to mind
But where are the published studies that say it's effective and safe. I'd be happy to reconsider in that case.
 

Marat

Team Captain
Sep 13, 2017
433
1,005
Marrickville
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
By the time the High Court had even heard the case, let alone ruled on it, COVID will be gone and we'll all be worrying about the imminent outbreak of space AIDS.
The independent thinkers on the Bench might be receptive to an application for an expedited hearing. As I understand it, the border closures would need to be shown to be reasonably necessary / reasonably proportionate to the health risk being managed so as to justify the infringement on the constitutional right to “free intercourse” between the states. If the virus keeps its current trajectory, and if states want to continue a lockdown to September, I would expect a challenge
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

StrappingTape

Premiership Player
Feb 29, 2012
4,357
4,287
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Observational studies are well accepted forms of research, especially where a treatment is considered to be potentially dangerous like this one. There are ethical considerations to take into account.

It's a peer reviewed study that's been published in the Lancet. The author is Mandeep Mehra, a Harvard Medical School professor and physician at Brigham and Women's Hospital.
The millions using it for Lupus, Malaria, arthritis etc for over what 70 years is a fairly big study to tell us how safe it is. As this own study says "Although observational studies cannot fully account for unmeasured confounding factors", considering that the vast majority of people dying are 70+ there's going to be a laundry list of people dying from COVID using it who were already battling it with one armed tied behind their back.

Again, it's being used as a preventative all around the world with healthcare workers just like Trump. Given to him by his Dr, I don't think the surgeon general is going to give it to him based on a thought bubble to hopefully keep the most important person in America virus free.
 

StrappingTape

Premiership Player
Feb 29, 2012
4,357
4,287
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
But where are the published studies that say it's effective and safe. I'd be happy to reconsider in that case.
It was one of the safest drugs in the world up until Trump said it looks promising. Note he has also touted Remdisiver (however it's spelt) and because Fauci also touted it, it got left alone. Just goes to show it's all political crap by the media. He should just say the opposite of what he wants by now and they'll advocate for him what he really wants.
 

Marat

Team Captain
Sep 13, 2017
433
1,005
Marrickville
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Would like to see the more draconian aspects of the lockdown tested. Have to say, when Motlop Rules was imprisoned for 14 days without light or air I was tempted, in the spirit of the fraternal brotherhood of the black and the white, to invoke the age old writ of habeus corpus in an attempt to secure his freedom
 

StrappingTape

Premiership Player
Feb 29, 2012
4,357
4,287
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
But where are the published studies that say it's effective and safe. I'd be happy to reconsider in that case.
Thanks to the media, they've basically f’ed a lot of trials underway:
 

pastmyprimus

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 19, 2011
5,668
19,816
Too far from the heartland
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
The millions using it for Lupus, Malaria, arthritis etc for over what 70 years is a fairly big study to tell us how safe it is. As this own study says "Although observational studies cannot fully account for unmeasured confounding factors", considering that the vast majority of people dying are 70+ there's going to be a laundry list of people dying using COVID who were already battling it with one armed tied behind their back.

Also again, it's being used as a preventative all around the world with healthcare workers just like Trump. Given to him by his Dr, I don't think the surgeon general is going to give it to him based on a thought bubble to hopefully keep the most important person in America virus free.
Safe for the treatment of those conditions but clearly not for the cohort of COVID patients that were the subject of the study: patients hospitalised for covid. This is the author's conclusion:

"We were unable to confirm a benefit of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, when used alone or with a macrolide, on in-hospital outcomes for COVID-19. Each of these drug regimens was associated with decreased in-hospital survival and an increased frequency of ventricular arrhythmias when used for treatment of COVID-19"

You're claiming it's been used as a preventative all around the world by healthcare workers. Care to back up that claim, and also show any studies that demonstrate its effectiveness as a preventative.
 

Marat

Team Captain
Sep 13, 2017
433
1,005
Marrickville
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
I'm just being a devil's advocate here but couldn't it be argued they are acting in the interests of their constituents as they should be. I don't doubt that it advantages them politically.

I've only briefly read up on the constitutionality of it but I did read:

"the High Court has accepted that a state law may impede the entry into the state of persons, animals or goods that are likely to injure its citizens. These include risks of the transmission of animal and plant diseases and the entry of noxious drugs."
https://theconversation.com/states-...p-coronavirus-is-that-actually-allowed-134354

I'm fine with people crossing the border but I think it would be wise that they can show evidence they are free of the virus at least for the next few months. Otherwise they will subject to quarrantine or will need to await the results of a forced test if evidence cannot be provided. Maybe that is a pain for people but we have seen how travellers can quickly spread the virus along all they come into contact with on their journey. Perhaps there are better ways, but I don't believe in absolutely free travel across the state borders at this point.
My understanding is that the restricting laws have to be reasonably necessary / reasonably proportionate. We have fast track testing now - why couldn’t we have testing on arrival - person on arrival has to pay for the test and wait for the results - if they test negative (as 99.99% will) they are free to go on their way. I concede a small chance of false negatives slipping through but given we are allowing tens of thousands of “essential workers” to cross the border, the risk seems pretty small in comparison.
 

PAFC66

Sack Hinkley.. please,for the love of God.
Feb 5, 2007
19,454
13,292
Melbourne
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Malaria drug touted by Trump linked to increased risk of death: study


It may be behind a paywall, so a couple of quotes.

A study of 96,000 hospitalised coronavirus patients on six continents found that those who received an anti-malarial drug promoted by US President Donald Trump as a "game changer" had a significantly higher risk of death compared with those who did not.

People treated with hydroxychloroquine, or the closely related drug chloroquine, were also more likely to develop a type of irregular heart rhythm, or arrhythmia, that can lead to sudden cardiac death, it concluded.
🤞🤞 He has a heart attack
 

Forzaport

Moderator
May 27, 2004
23,555
41,391
Adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Safe for the treatment of those conditions but clearly not for the cohort of COVID patients that were the subject of the study: patients hospitalised for covid. This is the author's conclusion:

"We were unable to confirm a benefit of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, when used alone or with a macrolide, on in-hospital outcomes for COVID-19. Each of these drug regimens was associated with decreased in-hospital survival and an increased frequency of ventricular arrhythmias when used for treatment of COVID-19"

You're claiming it's been used as a preventative all around the world by healthcare workers. Care to back up that claim, and also show any studies that demonstrate its effectiveness as a preventative.

The Indian government is one such example:

A revised government advisory on Friday recommended use of hydroxychloroquine as a preventive medication for asymptomatic healthcare workers working in non-COVID-19 hospitals, frontline staff on surveillance duty in containment zones and paramilitary/police personnel involved in coronavirus infection-related activities.
...
Highlighting the studies on prophylaxis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the advisory stated that a retrospective case-control analysis at ICMR has found that there is a significant dose-response relationship between the number of prophylactic doses taken and frequency of occurrence of SARSCoV-2 infection in symptomatic healthcare workers who were tested for coronavirus infection.

Another investigation from three central government hospitals in New Delhi indicates that amongst healthcare workers involved in COVID-19 care, those on HCQ prophylaxis were less likely to develop SARS-CoV-2 infection, compared to those who were not on it.
There's also this evidence which is far more informative than that was just published in the Lancet:

Toll climbs to 9, cops on HCQS spared the worst
Dr Kapote said there was no mortality among the 4,500 policemen who took HCQS in Mumbai. “Although some in this group have contracted Covid, they had a mild attack,” he said.
 

Duckimus Prime

Club Legend
Apr 26, 2008
1,840
2,648
Adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
A drug prescribed for 65 years and one of the safest in use is suddenly a 50% death choice because Trump. This is where we are at during this, amazing.
Wow, thats not what was actually claimed at all. But you know, keep demonstrating that superb statistical understanding.

A revised government advisory on Friday recommended use of hydroxychloroquine as a preventive medication for asymptomatic healthcare workers working in non-COVID-19 hospitals, frontline staff on surveillance duty in containment zones and paramilitary/police personnel involved in coronavirus infection-related activities.
This statement makes no sense. They're using it as a preventive medication... for people who are already infected but showing no symptoms? So hows it being preventive?

Dr Kapote said there was no mortality among the 4,500 policemen who took HCQS in Mumbai. “Although some in this group have contracted Covid, they had a mild attack,” he said.
Frontline Policemen.. generally younger and fitter have milder cases of COVID when they take it. Thats the kind of crap evidence that had Trump pushing it. The evidence presented for it is a massive case of correlation not causation.

The evidence against hydroxychloroquine comes from studying the results of people who have taken it as a treatment, that evidence is going to be weighted onto the negative effect, because its looking at people who are already worse off. But the evidence for it, is giving it as a preventive medication to people who are in the age group that generally gets milder cases, and finding out that they get milder cases when they catch it.

But really there is a gold standard, double blind study of hydroxychloroquine's effect going on.
 
Last edited:

Forzaport

Moderator
May 27, 2004
23,555
41,391
Adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
This statement makes no sense. They're using it as a preventive medication... for people who are already infected but showing no symptoms? So hows it being preventive?
Asymptomatic just means not showing symptoms, it doesn't mean they're infected. An asymptomatic carrier is a person not showing symptoms but is infected.

Frontline Policemen.. generally younger and fitter have milder cases of COVID when they take it. Thats the kind of crap evidence that had Trump pushing it. The evidence presented for it is a massive case of correlation not causation.
Well the comparison was to frontline policemen not taking the drug so make of that what you will.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

raptalia

Norm Smith Medallist
Mar 1, 2014
7,641
10,197
People's Republic of Onkaparinga
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Cronulla Sutherland Sharks

StrappingTape

Premiership Player
Feb 29, 2012
4,357
4,287
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Wow, thats not what was actually claimed at all. But you know, keep demonstrating that superb statistical understanding.
Tell that to the media and co whole speak like taking this drug (Been around 65+ years, taken by millions annually, very safe) instantly rolling a 50/50 chance of dying and is one of the deadliest things you can do.

Yet, when it came to it, many of those same people actually took it, maybe their Dr's were trying to off them? One can only hope they were.
 

Powerade 08

Brownlow Medallist
Mar 10, 2008
11,415
10,115
adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Malaria drug touted by Trump linked to increased risk of death: study


It may be behind a paywall, so a couple of quotes.

A study of 96,000 hospitalised coronavirus patients on six continents found that those who received an anti-malarial drug promoted by US President Donald Trump as a "game changer" had a significantly higher risk of death compared with those who did not.

People treated with hydroxychloroquine, or the closely related drug chloroquine, were also more likely to develop a type of irregular heart rhythm, or arrhythmia, that can lead to sudden cardiac death, it concluded.
Wait till you see the statistics for ventilators. Whoever created those death traps should be shot.
 

Laugh Laugh

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 21, 2014
8,209
17,328
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Maggies, Spurs, Raiders?
Tell that to the media and co whole speak like taking this drug (Been around 65+ years, taken by millions annually, very safe) instantly rolling a 50/50 chance of dying and is one of the deadliest things you can do.

Yet, when it came to it, many of those same people actually took it, maybe their Dr's were trying to off them? One can only hope they were.
What a great adventure in missing the point

It's 'safe' but not taking it is safer

There's no evidence of it being an effective treatment

People with illnesses that it works on now can't access it as readily
 

Powerage

Club Legend
Aug 14, 2014
1,275
1,542
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
I can't speak to all the dosages being used in the posts here. However regarding the Lancet study, vs the recommended dosages for Lupus and Malaria I noted the following:

  1. Malaria prophylaxis: Recommended weekly dosage for adults is 400 mg once a week of hydroxychloroquine orally.
  2. Lupus: Dose is usually not more than 400 mg once a day of hydroxychloroquine orally.
    https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/hydroxychloroquine-oral-route/proper-use/drg-20064216
  3. Covid-19: Dose was hydroxychloroquine alone, 596 mg daily in vitro correction orally for the Lancet study as far as I can ascertain.
    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext
Additionally when used to treat Covid-19, patients were usually on a cocktail of other drugs including antibiotics which would increase the likelihood of adverse cardiac affects.

This is just an educated guess from someone who is not a doctor. The higher dose used when treating patients with Covid-19, plus the other drugs taken by the patient which might interact with, or potentiate the side effects of hydroxychloroquine may well account for the heart arrhythmias. After all, the differences between a medicine and a poison often gets down to the dosage taken.

When used for Covid-19 prophylaxis I can't see what dosages were used. But I would bet they are lower, and those taking them would not be taking other drugs including antibiotics.

Any doctors among you please correct me if I am wrong.
 
Last edited:

Janus

Dominus Ex Machina
Sep 9, 2007
21,271
51,592
Portland, Oregon
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Dallas Cowboys, Chicago Bulls
That study was funded by pharmaceutical companies. Like they are going to advocate for a drug that you can get for pennies.

What is more interesting is that their idea of a control group just happened to be the bulk of the patients being tested. It wasn't split into equal groups - it was something like 70,000 in the control group, 6000 in one group, 3000 in another etc.

Let me see if I can find it...ah, here it is:

81,144 in the control group

1868 received chloroquine
3783 received chloroquine with macrolide
3016 received hydroxychloroquine
6221 received hydroxychloroquine with macrolide

If I'm collecting data and I'm comparing 14,888 patients to 81,144 patients, the chances are that more of the 81,144 are going to survive just by sheer weight of numbers.

They even had to provide a mean average of the dosage that was prescribed to patients because it was all over the shop:

"The mean daily dose and duration of the various drug regimens were as follows: chloroquine alone, 765 mg (SD 308) and 6·6 days (2·4); hydroxychloroquine alone, 596 mg (126) and 4·2 days (1·9); chloroquine with a macrolide, 790 mg (320) and 6·8 days (2·5); and hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide, 597 mg (128) and 4·3 days (2·0)."

Now, when I see SD 308...that means the dosage had a standard deviation of 308 mg for chloroquine alone, a standard deviation of 126 mg for hydroxychloroquine, a standard deviation of 320 mg for chloroquine with a macrolide and a standard deviation of 128 mg for hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide.

That means that the dosages in this 'study' fluctuated in the following manner:

457 mg to 1073 mg of chloroquine
470 mg to 722 mg of hydroxychloroquine
470 mg to 1110 mg of chloroquine with a macrolide
469 mg to 725 mg of hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide

This is what one website says about hydroxychloroquine: "Adult doses range from 400 mg/week for suppressive therapy to 1200 mg/day for acute malaria attacks. Typical daily doses of 200 to 600 mg are used for SLE and rheumatoid diseases."

What's the best way to tank efficacy and safety of a drug you don't have the patent for? Give some people not enough of it (reduced efficacy), and some people too much of it (increased fatality rate), then claim that the mean value is equal to the dosage that was advocated by other doctors (600 mg).

But you can believe what you want.
 

raptalia

Norm Smith Medallist
Mar 1, 2014
7,641
10,197
People's Republic of Onkaparinga
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Cronulla Sutherland Sharks
I heard on SEVEN News last night the we can expect Marshall Plan V4.0 sometime this week. The Premier is expected to make further announcements re easing of restrictions on pubs and clubs. The licencee of The Stag also appeared on SEVEN News last night and he was saying that he was not going to bother to open for a hand full of diners. I suspect many others will be in the same boat. Claims in the media that the beer is flowing in South Australian pubs and clubs is greatly exaggerated. The chardonnay is flowing for the likes of Steven Marshall and Matt Deighton who can afford the $80.00 a head price tag at some restaurants but for the peasants like yours truly nothing has changed.

At some stage Marshall is going to have to amend the grand plan if he wants to restart community sport as many associations and leagues will find it hard to re start without bar trade. Already a couple of local leagues have cancelled the season and if the rest cannot start until July a good few more may pull the pin. Hopefully enough of the Liberal Party faithful will have pointed this out to their MPs in the partisan survey the Government conducted and hopefully that is what this weeks announcement will be about.

States like NSW, Victoria and WA, all with higher infection rates than SA, have announced projected dates for pubs and clubs to operate with up to 50 patrons. If they are prepared to project into the future why not SA with a zero infection rate?
 

Interstater

Grumpy Old Man
Jun 7, 2015
2,781
5,317
SA
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
I don't understand why NSW still have 385 active cases.

=============

Anyway here is one metric for determining border openings:

Active cases per million people
NSW (385/7.3m) 52 cases per mill
Tassie (16/0.5m) 32 cases per mill
Vic (99/5.6m) 17 cases per mill
QLD (13/4.5m) 3 cases per mill
WA (2/2.3m) 1 case per mill

I know pollies don't like to lock themselves into anything but why not make it 10 known active cases per million as the metric for opening borders?
i.e. when:
NSW < 73 cases
Vic < 56 cases
Tassie < 5 cases

SA, QLD, WA and NT to allow border crossings between those particular states.
Probably too much maths for some.
 

Schlez

All Australian
May 10, 2006
640
621
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Hence why I went away. Complete waste of time arguing about it. Nothing to be gained other than attitude and insults.



When people feel out of control, they look to leaders and authority figures to give them the answers. It doesn't surprise me in the slightest that anyone who tried to push back against the government narrative was met with hostility.

What people fail to realise is is this: No one knew what was going on. All the science being touted was being done on the fly, based on epidemiology from previous viruses. The best you could call what scientists were saying was an educated guess, simply because they didn't have the data necessary to form a valid opinion.

That's why I agreed with shutting things down for a time until we had a better handle on the rate of infection vs recovery etc. while we collected more empirical data. At the time, modelling was the only thing that could be used.

Now we know it's not as bad as the models suggested, it's time to get back to work. Simple.
Not quite. You were called out on some of the claims you were making which were shown to be wrong. You were jumping at shadows, finding evidence to suit your narrative. It wouldn't be so bad if you said it with some humility, rather than a know it all attitude. Now it seems you're trying to rewrite the narrative.

Your content would be a lot more interesting to read without the arrogance. Otherwise the amount of time and effort you put into your arguments is really admirable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top Bottom