Coronavirus update - NO MORE RESTRICTIONS

[CCFCC3PO]

Re: Coronavirus update

Tragic story.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-53097646

[lisvaneblue]

Re: Coronavirus update

Not quite yet, because it has been in a clinical trial until recently so you are jumping the gun a little bit. Based on the results of the trial, it is estimated as many as 5,000 lives could have been saved if we were in a position to use the treatment earlier. That is not me knocking anyone, by the way, it was always going to take time to get treatments that were effective (and no doubt we will find treatments that are even more effective, or alternative treatments that will be effective on those people for whom dexamethasone is not effective). But, it highlights that this will save many lives globally, hopefully we will see the death rate curve dampen soon.

I recommend that you read the trial data. It conclusively states that the drug makes a big difference for those needing oxygen or on a ventilator. The trial had 2,000 where dexamethasone was added to the usual treatments for 6 days, and 4000 patients where it was not added. For those who did not need ventilation or oxygen it made no difference.

As I mentioned in an earlier post there was a 35% reduction in death rate for those on ventilators, and 20% for those on oxygen when compared to the 4,000 who did not get it

[the other bob wilson]

Re: Coronavirus update

I recommend that you read the trial data. It conclusively states that the drug makes a big difference for those needing oxygen or on a ventilator. The trial had 2,000 where dexamethasone was added to the usual treatments for 6 days, and 4000 patients where it was not added. For those who did not need ventilation or oxygen it made no difference.

As I mentioned in an earlier post there was a 35% reduction in death rate for those on ventilators, and 20% for those on oxygen when compared to the 4,000 who did not get it

What I don't get is how they can say on one hand that there is a 35 per cent reduction in the death rate of those on ventilators and, on the other, that it saves one life in every eight of those on ventilators - the two claims are not compatible are they?

Anyway, even if it saves over a third of lives that had been being lost, I'd still say that, great news that it is, it still doesn't equate to the vaccine that would make such a difference to how the world could operate. It's more that this treatment would be one of ,hopefully, a few that would mean that we could "live" with the virus without the need for the drastic measures we've seen in the event of no vaccine being forthcoming.

[Rjk]

Re: Coronavirus update

What I don't get is how they can say on one hand that there is a 35 per cent reduction in the death rate of those on ventilators and, on the other, that it saves one life in every eight of those on ventilators - the two claims are not compatible are they?

Anyway, even if it saves over a third of lives that had been being lost, I'd still say that, great news that it is, it still doesn't equate to the vaccine that would make such a difference to how the world could operate. It's more that this treatment would be one of ,hopefully, a few that would mean that we could "live" with the virus without the need for the drastic measures we've seen in the event of no vaccine being forthcoming.

They could be compatible - the 35% reduction in the death rate could be 35% reduction of the existing death rate i.e. not absolute 35% but 35% of another %age,which could equal 1 in 8 people being saved.

You can formulate that into 2 equations with 2 unknowns and demonstrate that for a given death rate that it is feasible.

[the other bob wilson]

Re: Coronavirus update

They could be compatible - the 35% reduction in the death rate could be 35% reduction of the existing death rate i.e. not absolute 35% but 35% of another %age,which could equal 1 in 8 people being saved.

You can formulate that into 2 equations with 2 unknowns and demonstrate that for a given death rate that it is feasible.

Thanks for that.

[the other bob wilson]

Re: Coronavirus update

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2020/06/how-uk-has-been-left-worst-all-worlds-over-covid-19

[the other bob wilson]

Re: Coronavirus update

All shops to reopen in Wales from Monday, but the five mile rule to stay for at least another fortnight.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/coronavirus-covid19-news-lockdown-updates-18449324

[lisvaneblue]

Re: Coronavirus update

They could be compatible - the 35% reduction in the death rate could be 35% reduction of the existing death rate i.e. not absolute 35% but 35% of another %age,which could equal 1 in 8 people being saved.

You can formulate that into 2 equations with 2 unknowns and demonstrate that for a given death rate that it is feasible.

That's exactly what it is. The reduction is a comparison between the dexamethasone group and the other group of patients

[City123]

Re: Coronavirus update

[CCFCC3PO]

Re: Coronavirus update

That can't be right. I've read here Drakeford and the Welsh Government are making a hash of this, and this clearly shows the Welsh Government are more effective in getting a lower R rate.

[CCFCC3PO]

Re: Coronavirus update

I recommend that you read the trial data. It conclusively states that the drug makes a big difference for those needing oxygen or on a ventilator. The trial had 2,000 where dexamethasone was added to the usual treatments for 6 days, and 4000 patients where it was not added. For those who did not need ventilation or oxygen it made no difference.

As I mentioned in an earlier post there was a 35% reduction in death rate for those on ventilators, and 20% for those on oxygen when compared to the 4,000 who did not get it

I think you have misunderstood me, and I take responsibility for that because I was unclear.

My point was not about the effectiveness of the drug - but the fact it is based on trials and so we are not yet at the stage where we can say it has "greatly reduced death figures". Hopefully we will see the true impact in the next few weeks.

[Rjk]

Re: Coronavirus update

That can't be right. I've read here Drakeford and the Welsh Government are making a hash of this, and this clearly shows the Welsh Government are more effective in getting a lower R rate.

someone on here posted that drakeford was being too cautious, while Boris was being too cavalier - I'm not sure exactly what r value they'd be happy with

[ccfc_is_my_life]

Re: Coronavirus update

All shops to reopen in Wales from Monday, but the five mile rule to stay for at least another fortnight.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/w...dates-18449324

Phew, fortunate everyone lives within a 5 mile radius of where they work.

"Mr Drakeford did say that if you have a compassionate reason to visit someone beyond the local area, that will be allowed but he was not lifting it now as "the virus is not at an end"."

So saying the restriction would end July 6th is ****ing ridiculous unless Drakeford really believes the virus will be ended by then. Smacks of looking for an excuse to justify locking down longer than England.

[CCFCC3PO]

Re: Coronavirus update

Phew, fortunate everyone lives within a 5 mile radius of where they work.

"Mr Drakeford did say that if you have a compassionate reason to visit someone beyond the local area, that will be allowed but he was not lifting it now as "the virus is not at an end"."

So saying the restriction would end July 6th is ****ing ridiculous unless Drakeford really believes the virus will be ended by then. Smacks of looking for an excuse to justify locking down longer than England.

Drakeford is, as you can see, backed up with the lowest infection rate in the country. But, yes, if you look at it simplistically and without factual evidence it may appear that he is acting out of spite.

The 5 mile guideline cannot be policed, but if the majority of people are following it then it will have an impact. I believe you can travel further than 5 miles for work purposes.

[CCFCC3PO]

Re: Coronavirus update

someone on here posted that drakeford was being too cautious, while Boris was being too cavalier - I'm not sure exactly what r value they'd be happy with

0.7 I guess