Comments by "N Marbletoe" (@nmarbletoe8210) on "Monday Pandemic Update, 2 sides of the pond" video.

  1.  @wastyeasty8042  Yes, two days off plus the usual weekend.
    3
  2.  @antoniolittera2154  This review paper actually includes recent randomized trials of Ivermectin, which were not available when the NIH did their memo. . https://osf.io/wx3zn/ Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19
    2
  3.  @josephshawa  Thanks! Reading the Woods Hole paper since I have two friends who have worked there. . "We also show that neighboring countries applying less restrictive social distancing measures (as opposed to police-enforced home containment) experience a very similar time evolution of the epidemic." - https://thefatemperor.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/8.-PREPRINT-WOODS-HOLE-Full-lockdown-policies-in-Western-Europe-countries-have-no-evident.pdf
    2
  4.  @christopherrobinson7541  That's why we need a program to monitor the numbers of infections in the US. The "navigation by crashing into things" approach may not be ideal.
    2
  5. That may be true for the nation at large. We are at ~30% or more already.
    2
  6. One thing we require is a count of infection cases. A proper count, not just posting the daily test totals.
    1
  7.  @Shelmerdine745  This is the Unicorn Dragon of papers -- a review paper -- on Ivermectin: https://osf.io/wx3zn/ . "Repeated, consistent, large magnitude improvements in clinical outcomes have now been reported when ivermectin is used not only as a prophylactic agent but also in mild, moderate, and even severe disease states from multiple, large, randomized and observational controlled trials." -Abstract, p3
    1
  8.  @dallastaylor5479  The other option is to say "Don't work, here's a check." . Doing nothing is as bad as requiring the impossible.
    1
  9. Everyone is going for herd immunity. Also, every country is trying to do it with vaccine more than infections.
    1
  10. You mention 22 studies but link to a video. Do you have a link to any of the best studies in your estimation?
    1
  11. They cannot be trusted. They can miss 50% to 95% of true cases. Random surveys are required to get decent numbers.
    1
  12. Research would suggest that raw test numbers only record ~ 10% of true cases.
    1
  13.  @christopherrobinson7541  lol the inertia of past habits
    1
  14. yes, it would change the estimate of IFR by a factor of two. .
    1
  15. agree
    1
  16. Indeed, the test totals are in fact not statistical estimates for the population. . When real studies are done, they find ~10x the number of cases. Random invitation surveys are easy and cheap but for some reason ignored by much of the world today, although the UK is doing them weekly.
    1
  17. Irrelevant. The actual fraud is using test numbers as if they were a proper estimates of population prevalence, when they are not, and are often wrong by a factor of 2x or 10x or even 26x.
    1
  18. Let me re-phrase that: the biggest mis-information is the mis-use of the test numbers as if they were population infection totals.
    1
  19. Trump had it, he doesn't need to wear the mask anymore. Also thankfully he lost the election so he won't need to be on TV any more. The Corporate News is crying bitter tears and hoping he refuses to leave office.
    1
  20.  @rogerstarkey5390  Ever heard the saying, the perfect is the enemy of the good? . Masks are helpful, everybody do your part, but a person who has had and cleared the virus pretty much cannot get it or give it. . Vaccines are different. They are only ~62 to 95% effective so far. This is far less than natural immunity. Orders of magnitude less.
    1
  21. How is your state doing on this graph from Johns Hopkins? https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/new-cases-50-states
    1
  22. yes, including at least three randomized controlled studies. . looking very good for Ivermectin, better than Hydroxy or most of the others
    1
  23.  @helloitsme1158  The tests are fine, but it is indisputable that they are not being used in a way designed to estimate total population prevalence. .
    1
  24. Good data is recent. Looks very good though. https://osf.io/wx3zn/
    1
  25. @Brigid The link I posted discusses three randomized, controlled studies, and says they have not been through peer review yet. .
    1
  26. The exponential curve is, as you have discovered, not the actual math function that works. . The logistic function is the one biologists use, and it includes a finite maximum, a "carrying capacity" we would call it for penguins for example.
    1
  27. not anything noticeable. (of course, the numbers we see are not proper surveys)
    1
  28. Is NY doing random invitation surveys to estimate true number of infections?
    1
  29. Ivermectin review paper: https://osf.io/wx3zn/ . very positive about it
    1
  30. it's not true
    1
  31. i agree
    1
  32. agree. the positive test total is often 1/10th the true infection total
    1
  33. People must be blamed! People on the other side! Blamed! Now! . Anyone who doesn't join the blaming will be found guilty.
    1
  34. This well written review paper is quite positive about Ivermectin, and reports the first three randomized controlled trials: "Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19" https://osf.io/wx3zn/
    1
  35.  @RussCR5187  Thank you! I am a research snob -- only Randomized Controlled studies are worth my time. Ivermectin is doing very well in these types of studies!
    1
  36. Agree, zero leadership. The governors are also failing to even monitor the true case numbers.
    1
  37. 650k in the UK?
    1
  38.  @classictrance3103  thanks! Using Sars-2 mortality rates... that would take... about 216m infections, so about the same number required for herd immunity. Very interesting.
    1