California no longer under lockdown - people freak out

[Agema]

Zn(2+) inhibits coronavirus and arterivirus RNA polymerase activity in vitro and zinc ionophores block the replication of these viruses in cell culture - PubMed

Increasing the intracellular Zn(2+) concentration with zinc-ionophores like pyrithione (PT) can efficiently impair the replication of a variety of RNA viruses, including poliovirus and influenza virus. For some viruses this effect has been attributed to interference with viral polyprotein...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

If it works against SARS-COV-1, it most probably works for SARS-COV-2.

We've discussed this at least twice, if not more. What works in a petri dish doesn't necessarily work in a real person (especially when tested on a different virus). And the evidence looks very good that this is one of the many, many things someone found out didn't translate from in vitro to in vivo. It's not just that, but it's a fringe hypothesis even in terms of the in vitro data.

Giving HCQ AFTER the cytokine storm caused ARDS is proof it doesn't help with said cytokine storm? How does that make any sense?

It's exactly the logic of steroids. You don't want to give someone steroids early because they are immunosuppressants and reduce the body's ability to combat the virus. You give people steroids when there is a risk of excessive immune system activity. So, if HCQ were any use against cytokine storm, it would also work with later administration for more severe symptoms. But it doesn't work, so it doesn't work.

Moreover, both CQ and HCQ have been proven to have immunomodulatory activities by interfering with Toll-like receptor signaling pathways, reducing cytokine production, and inhibiting MHC class II expression, antigen presentation, and immune activation through the reduction of CD154 expression in T cells.

And yet they don't work to treat covid-19. It is not unusual to find that drugs that theoretically should be beneficial by some mechanism of action are not in practice.

Meta-analysis of non-significant results can equal significant results.

Yeah, and they don't help your case, either.

The studies that trace by 7,000+ transmissions only find a small handful from outdoors does not come close to equaling even 1% let alone 5-10%. I recall you not liking estimations when IFRs came into play.

You mean a study, which found one that could be safely identified as outside transmission. But when you think about what that actually means, it means approximately sod all. It's like arguing that there are no burglaries that occur except for those where the burglar was caught and convicted. It was also apparently conducted when the Chinese government had substantially banned outdoors gatherings. Mm.

There are in fact about half a dozen or more looking at outdoors transmission. They're clocking in about 5-10% of cases. (Of course, contextually, most people without outdoors jobs also spend about 90% of their time indoors, too). There are statistics suggesting that places which allowed mass outdoor gatherings (e.g. sports events) were associated with bursts of subsequent infections. You can add to this earlier studies conducted on other respiratory diseases, which are broadly consistent for showing evidence of outdoors transmission as a significant minority.

Like I said, you just don't invade people's personal spaces and your pretty much gonna be fine outside.

That is not a scientifically-derived conclusion.

Meta-analysis of flu/mask studies found no significant reduction in flu via wearing masks.

Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures

Pandemic Influenza—Personal Protective Measures

wwwnc.cdc.gov

With absolutely massive caveats. Again, you need to read what you are citing more carefully, and you need a wider grasp of the literature. If you just cherry pick something that says what you want you're only spouting so much bullshit.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

We've discussed this at least twice, if not more. What works in a petri dish doesn't necessarily work in a real person (especially when tested on a different virus). And the evidence looks very good that this is one of the many, many things someone found out didn't translate from in vitro to in vivo. It's not just that, but it's a fringe hypothesis even in terms of the in vitro data.

That's exactly my point because that is where [the lab] the vast majority of studies saying masks work come from as there's barely real world data for them. The Danish covid mask study didn't show significant results, the medical community can't prove surgical masks do anything, etc.

It's exactly the logic of steroids. You don't want to give someone steroids early because they are immunosuppressants and reduce the body's ability to combat the virus. You give people steroids when there is a risk of excessive immune system activity. So, if HCQ were any use against cytokine storm, it would also work with later administration for more severe symptoms. But it doesn't work, so it doesn't work.

Stopping the initial storm (or lessening it) is better than trying to stop it after it's already done major damage and forced someone into the hospital. HCQ isn't some amazing drug for covid but something that will help a little bit. There's no danger in taking it and it's super cheap, it's literally the same logic as mask logic and a better safe than sorry approach.

Yeah, and they don't help your case, either.

It's pretty damn hard to find an early treatment study of HCQ with the HCQ group didn't do better than the non-HCQ group.

You mean a study, which found one that could be safely identified as outside transmission. But when you think about what that actually means, it means approximately sod all. It's like arguing that there are no burglaries that occur except for those where the burglar was caught and convicted. It was also apparently conducted when the Chinese government had substantially banned outdoors gatherings. Mm.

There are in fact about half a dozen or more looking at outdoors transmission. They're clocking in about 5-10% of cases. (Of course, contextually, most people without outdoors jobs also spend about 90% of their time indoors, too). There are statistics suggesting that places which allowed mass outdoor gatherings (e.g. sports events) were associated with bursts of subsequent infections. You can add to this earlier studies conducted on other respiratory diseases, which are broadly consistent for showing evidence of outdoors transmission as a significant minority.

A lot of outdoor places also have an indoor component so it's hard to pinpoint where the transmission happened.

Indoor spread is so pervasive that researchers, including Razani, have struggled to document clear examples of outdoor transmission. That's in part because many situations where the virus may spread outside also have an indoor component – a summer camp, for example.

Ireland put their outdoor infection rate at 0.1%.

Some excerpts from the article:
At the University of Canterbury, Prof Mike Weed studied 27,000 Covid-19 cases based on 6,000 different pieces of data. One study was of 7,500 cases in China and Japan before lockdown in both of those countries. The number of cases associated with outdoor transmission was “so small to be insignificant”, he discovered.

-

Ed Lavelle, a professor of biochemistry at Trinity College Dublin, said the findings were “really great news and back up a lot of the evidence from the United States” which showed that outside activities are inherently safe.

He added that the big issue was not the outdoor activity, but what happened either side of it.

“We have not had the numbers until now for what is safe and what is not safe and how you can control it. It’s been hearsay to this point,” he said. “Having coffee shops outside would be very safe. For me, the key thing is what happens after the outdoor activity.”

That is not a scientifically-derived conclusion.

From article linked above:
“The risk of infection is low outdoors because unless you are up close to someone infected, most of the virus will likely be blown away and diluted in the breeze, like cigarette smoke.”

With absolutely massive caveats. Again, you need to read what you are citing more carefully, and you need a wider grasp of the literature. If you just cherry pick something that says what you want you're only spouting so much bullshit.

What caveats? It's from the CDC, you like official government sites.