Sample size matters, as do conflicting conclusions. I think we need more information to draw conclusions about the percent of the population that is asymptomatic, but others will accept one study over another.
For example, many people accept that malaria drugs cure coronavirus even though there are no studies supporting that conclusion, and the anecdotal information comes from a Frenchman who based his opinion on 26 people.
"But the researchers only looked at 36 patients and only 26 actually received hydroxychloroquine in the study — a tiny sample size. Hydroxychloroquine can also have
side effects like headaches, dizziness, and diarrhea, so it’s not something that doctors can blanketly prescribe. And the study wasn’t blinded, meaning the patients knew what they were getting, nor was it randomized."
Sure. But as someone who works in an applied medical field, I have learned that decisions and policy have to be made way before data come in.
SOME people may well be helped by malaria drugs. This is the case with many drugs that the US refuses to authorize for general use. Don't know about Canada (Canada must surely be more intelligent). Mexico of course just allows everything for everybody, mostly self-prescribed.
In the US, a drug has to be virtually side effect free or very specifically prescribed to get approval.
I have learned to rely on the
actual decisions and intuitions of clinical practitioners. So when any data comes from those men and women, I pay very close attention. For example, in years of watching psychiatrists prescribe psychoactives, I am amazed that good doctors can tell (by clues they can't completely explain) which anti-depressant goes with which person. Some people - nothing helps, and those are often people that M.D's, early on, express puzzlement or outright confusion about. They can tell.
I can also tell quite a bit from observing, but I can't actually observe (for example) what the heck is causing British hospitals to run out of oxygen. I fear it could happen at the peak, here, as well. Oxygen seems to be a central treatment. Ventilators? Not so much.
Hyperbaric chambers? Seem pretty promising for the 3 people who could avail themselves of it - there will never be a single study of this, because it's unfolding real time and has too many variables. The same people who want the (untested) malaria drugs are going to want the hyperbaric chambers too.
They can't have them. Earth doesn't have the resources and even if the most efficient military got hold of the project, it's way too late for this wave
Hmm. Let's see who gets them. Hyperbaric chambers need tons of oxygen - and, well, building more and using them would completely eliminate life-saving oxygen for the rest of us.
Speaking of which, there are now reports (not studies) of encephalopathy in this disease (necrotic) and hyperbaric has been proposed in the past and tested for such afflictions. So do we save it for them? (They will be literally on death's door and it's not clear that they will have good quality of life after).
Lots and lots to consider. In the meantime, I think the vast majority of positive CoVid cases are asymptomatic and I think the new test from Stanford (which does need FDA approval to be used in an emergency in California) is going to give us that information - within 2 weeks, much much more will be known. The pediatric infectious disease unit at Stanford, alone, has patients for testing this and already enrolled (for obvious reasons). While Stanford gets to be first, other university hospitals in California are rapidly doing their own protocols (the science behind it takes years to master, but the implementation will be rapid).
I also think the older one is, the more likely they are to be symptomatic. That's just a hunch.
I always enjoy talking to you, Otto. I hope your son is okay. I admire your family's intelligence and education, in being able to understand and arrange your own health measures. When the antibody test comes to your neighborhood, things are going to start looking sunny by today's lights.
