On 2020-10-16 15:39:56, user Mithun Aswath wrote:

The dosage of HCQ is much higher than normal recommended dose. The British Medical journal suggests only 200-400mg per day. But in this they can three - four times the dosage.

There is a trial in Belgium with low dose HCQ which has shown efficacy.

Maybe WHO needs to do proper trial for HCQ as a prophaltic like it's used for Malaria with a proper dosage and not a high one.

Also Vitamin D and Zinc benefits should be studied quickly as it's a cheap and easy immunity builder.

On 2020-10-16 19:04:34, user rick wrote:

The results contradict those published in NEJM for remdesivir. This trial is slightly larger, but the NEJM study was better described, and more homogeneous in its methods. It's unclear to me how the two patient populations compare, although some comments here suggest that, in this trial, they tended to be fairly sick. I would also like to see more work on this drug given early. By the time a person is hospitalized, their immune response to the virus may be more important than viral load, and antivirals can't do anything about that.

On 2020-10-16 21:49:42, user Carlos Stalgis wrote:

The question I have is different. Do we really believe that this type of trial design and implementation is good enough to answer the questions posed? I don't know of any other trial such as this one. It seems that they tested the design and not the drugs. In addition, they should not use the generic term IFN but the more specific interferon-beta. Not all IFNs work the same as antivirals.

On 2020-10-17 01:47:55, user EntropicInfo wrote:

Seems odd for this preprint not to provide any information about time from symptom onset to antiviral administration. Was time from symptom onset omitted from the paper or simply not recorded?

On 2020-10-18 08:46:08, user Amichai Perlman, PharmD wrote:

The use of 99% confidence intervals for subgroups in the meta-analysis in figure 4 obscures the subgroup difference which is suggested by the data. Using 95% confidence intervals and formal test for interaction, the difference in the effect of remdesivir on mortality between ventilated and non-ventilated patients would likely be considered "significant" according to standard meta-analysis reporting procedures. While this is a post hoc analysis and therefore is not conclusive, and should not be portrayed as such, its total dismissal does not seem warranted, both in terms of accepted statistical standards, and in terms of the effect size (it is identical to that shown for dexamethasone in non-ventilated patients on oxygen the Recovery trial).

On 2020-10-18 11:36:53, user Benjamin Himes wrote:

Nice ideas, I hope it matures into some useful tech. There are a few holes in the experimental design (or at least the presentation of such.)

Full review is accessible on Zenodo.

https://doi.org/10.5281/zen...

On 2020-10-18 23:05:10, user Joe B wrote:

Would have been interesting to also examine use of fentanyl, dexmedetomidine and propofol in these patients. Also, since there is no IV formulation of melatonin available (we had the IND for it), presumable oral melatonin was used. The bioavailability of it is very low, about 15% (already published data years ago). So, the doses used would have been important to know also. Sort of shocking that P&S is using so much in terms a atypical antipsychotics in patients who presumably have ICU dementia, generally not recommended by SCCM guidelines.

On 2020-10-20 09:17:45, user Anne Hartmann wrote:

Dear Prof. Kähler, <br /> thank you very much for your study. <br /> Unfortunately, we think that some aspects are not considered correctly and some mentioned conclusions therefore can not be drawn. We summarized our comments in a statement on our blog (statement is available in German as well as English)<br /> https://blogs.tu-berlin.de/....<br /> Kind regards<br /> Anne Hartmann, member of the research group of Prof. Kriegel

On 2020-10-20 14:15:11, user Robbert Bentvelsen wrote:

This trial was published: N Engl J Med 2020; 383:494-496 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMc2016321

On 2020-10-21 14:36:25, user Stephen B. Strum wrote:

It would be important to see if hospitals in urban settings have superior outcomes re death rates versus rural medical facilities. It would also be important to know if the issue of viral load as it relates to the population wearing masks (e.g., high-mask wearing versus intermediate vs low-mask wearing) plays a role.

On 2020-10-22 21:10:27, user Critical Dissection wrote:

Dear author,

After reading your article, here are my comments. I will start out with positive; the abstract was greatly laid out. I like how it is broken down to individual parts. It helped me navigate that section better. Your discussion section hits a variety points discussed in the paper and wrap it up nicely. Now to discuss certain things that were missing. Presentation is very important, and the paper lack the proper flow to achieve that presentation, for example table 1 was not present as a unique table but broken down into two pages which can be confusing for some. The figures were not explained, and conclusion had to be made from the caption and some information. A major issue in deciding if this method works is the sample size and lack of a control population. Further trials would have to be done as indicated in the study limitations, bias should be minimized in next group and a control group containing patients needing ablation but never had one before would be recommended.

On 2020-10-27 00:19:10, user Critical Dissection wrote:

Dear author,

Thank you for posting this article! It was truly very informative and will likely have important implications in resolving disorders of the heart, or possibly in other diseases and organs one day. I appreciated how thoroughly you expanded upon the criteria, explained considerations and acknowledged limitations, particularly in the discussion section. Additionally, patients' medical history and data were depicted very well through the tables in the Results section, so this was helpful in providing additional background. Overall, the methods and discussion sections were very detailed and provided excellent insight on this topic.

I have some feedback and recommendations for this study and article that I believe will help to improve clarity and reach a wider audience. First, it may be helpful to include more background about atrial flutters and ablation techniques in the introduction section. This would allow a more diverse audience of readers to understand the paper's contents without referring to external sources. Further, the results were not explained in great detail, so it was slightly difficult to interpret the figures presented. There was a more substantial mention of these results in the discussion section, but there may be some merit in including a direct explanation of each figure. Lastly, the small sample size likely caused bias in the results, as mentioned in the study limitations. The study would reach a larger category of patients if the criteria were less specific, so I would love to see a follow-up study, perhaps with expanded scope.

Overall, this article was very interesting! I do not have much background in the field, so I found some parts difficult to understand without reviewing external sources, and I believe there are some improvements that could be made to make this article more accessible to the public and the study more generalizable. Thank you, and I hope to see some future studies on this topic!

On 2020-10-23 06:01:42, user Martijn Hoogeveen wrote:

Pre-proof is nu online https://authors.elsevier.co...

On 2020-10-24 19:58:34, user Per Sjögren-Gulve wrote:

Why not use multiple logistic regression and examine age plus additional predictive variables (continuous awa categorical) together + interaction terms? Studies can be numbered/ID:d and included as one predictive variable in a common dataset. In that way, differences in distribution of the other predictive variables between the studies can be considered or - if there are no such differences - rejected and datasets pooled.

On 2020-10-26 08:37:35, user Jan wrote:

Very nice study! But I'm wondering how much antibody levels und numbers of specific B and T cells in the blood really tell us about protection. Is there any data out there about numbers specific plasma cells in the bone marrow or presence of tissue resident memory cells, e.g. in the lung - maybe from autopsies?

On 2020-10-26 13:14:19, user Stefan Dombrowski wrote:

I am not a fan of these respositories. They may well contain research that has been rejected by the peer review process and thus cannot find a legitimate outlet. And, now that this study has been submitted to the world via this repository it very likely cannot be subjected to the gold standard of peer review-- the double blind peer review process. CNBC and other media outlets have been sloppy by disseminating this study broadly given its lack of scientific vetting.

On 2020-10-28 06:10:32, user DenSvenskeSkeptikern wrote:

My question is this; is this a cross-section study? They just tested cognitive abilities whose results were below the average otherwise and then conclude the cognitive decline must be chronic? I mean, you would need to do follow-up to even begin suggesting it is chronic, right?

If things improve even though it might take weeks or even months, then it isn't chronic is it? Also, wouldn't you suffer (maybe temporary) cognitive decline if you end up in the ICU because of how intense that is for your body no matter why you ended up there?

Is it likely my questions would be indirectly answered as the article goes through the peer-review process where they might realize the logical flaws or the possibly too weak evidence they base their conclusions on?

On 2020-10-28 11:35:36, user David Simons wrote:

I have interpreted the inclusion criteria for the "Severe SARS-CoV-2 infection" group to include those within the biobank that died during March to July. If that's not the case and it's only individuals who died with COVID-19 on their death certificate you need to make this clearer. I understand that there have been a high proportion of COVID-19 related deaths in the community but this has definitely not been the only cause of death in these 4 months. If you are intent on using this to include individuals I think you'd need to run a sensitivity analysis on your results to investigate what happens when you exclude these individuals from your analytic sample.

Further, an in-hospital test is not an adequate proxy for disease severity. The reference you site can also not clearly support that statement. There are multiple reasons for in-hospital testing of non-severe individuals. Some of these include; staff of the hospital (or family member of staff), at risk groups (i.e. those attending the hospital for regular dialysis or chemotherapy) and those that attend the emergency department but do not get admitted to hospital. There are several ways you can mitigate against this depending on what data you have available. One option would be to use length of stay combined with in-hospital mortality to support your definition of severity, for example, if a significant proportion of your participants are admitted and discharged within less than 2 days it's unlikely they have severe disease. A further option if available would be to explore their requirement for supplementary oxygen, enrollment into RECOVERY or similar trial with inclusion of only severe disease or treatment with dexamethasone/remdisivir. If none of these are possible having a sensitivity analysis where you remove those with known comorbidities that increase the probability of asymptomatic screening or where the disease may not be severe at testing (i.e. renal dialysis patients or chemotherapy patients) and healthcare workers may strengthen this assumption.

Hope these are helpful comments.

On 2020-10-28 17:49:44, user Sam Wheeler wrote:

How often should a healthy 40-year-old person take the flu shot, for maximum protection? Every 2 months, until real covid-19 vaccine is available?

Does vaccine brand matter? Egg-free vaccines better? Egg-free flu vaccines are unavailable in most European countries, where could an European consumer buy them and how?

On 2020-10-28 21:36:35, user IJ wrote:

The SNPs were found using a GWAS that controlled for vitamin D supplementation, and thus measured the genetic association with unsupplemented vitamin D levels. However, the question we are interested in is the relationship of COVID-19 outcomes with actual vitamin D levels, including supplementation for those who are already taking supplements. Since the decision to supplement is affected by unsupplemented vitamin D levels, this study needs to account for supplementation.

In particular, those with low vitamin D levels are more likely to be advised to take supplements. Could it be that those with genetic predisposition towards low levels might be taking supplements that raise their vitamin D levels, on average, more than is needed to compensate for the genetic predisposition? In that case, genetic predisposition for low vitamin D could _negatively_ correlate with actual vitamin D level, which would reverse the interpretation of the results.

On 2020-10-29 07:12:38, user reality tester wrote:

orange county prevalence 12% equates to 7.6 x higher than reported? 61,000 cases reported x 7.6 = 463,000 divide by 3.1 mil population equals 15% at least as of today... add 35% of those who have innate immunity as research published in Science and Nature indicates, and OC is at herd immunity threshold... no wonder hospitalizations are decreasing on 7 day moving averages, and daily deaths likewise dropping, despite more "cases" as tallied by positive swabs ...

On 2020-10-29 16:33:54, user Najmul Haider wrote:

Dear Readers-- the original article of this Preprint is Published as a Peer review article at "BMJ Global Health". You can download the published article from here: https://gh.bmj.com/content/...

On 2020-10-30 07:38:22, user Rajeev A wrote:

Dear Sir,<br /> Thanks for the answer to a question I was waiting for.<br /> In America COVID has surpassed the road accident death stats already.<br /> Thanking You<br /> Yours sincerely<br /> Rajeev

On 2020-10-31 09:30:37, user Paolo Benna wrote:

In a meta-analysis related to EPHX1 polymorphisms, Gui-Xin Zhao et al. [1] used the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) [2] for assessing the quality of the case series to be included in the study. The same Authors in this meta-analysis [3] use, for the evaluation of other polymorphisms, some of the series already included in [1]. Nevertheless, they attribute a different NOS score to these in the two meta-analysis. In detail:<br /> Hung CC (2012): 8 [1] and 6 [3]<br /> Yun W (2013): 5 [1] and 8 [3]<br /> Zhu X (2014): 5 [1] and 8 [3]<br /> Daci A (2015): 8 [1] and 6 [3]<br /> I think a clarification in this regard is appropriate, since the discrepancy is not easy to understand.<br /> Yours sincerely,<br /> Paolo Benna

References<br /> [1] Zhao G, Shen M, Zhang Z, Wang P, Xie C, He G. Association between EPHX1 polymorphisms and carbamazepine metabolism in epilepsy: a meta-analysis. Int J Clin Pharm. 2019; 41: 1414–1428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11...<br /> [2] Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analysis. The Ottawa Health Research Institute. 2013. http://www.ohri.ca/programs...<br /> [3] Zhao G, Zhang Z, Cai W, Shen M, Wang P, He G. Associations between CYP3A4, CYP3A5 and SCN1A polymorphisms and carbamazepine metabolism in epilepsy: a meta-analysis. medRxiv 2020.03.03.20030783. https://doi.org/10.1101/202...

On 2020-11-01 19:22:55, user kdrl nakle wrote:

Sample of 34?

On 2020-11-02 00:25:13, user Noriaki Kurita (????), MD, PhD wrote:

This paper was eventually published from BMC Nephrology.<br /> https://bmcnephrol.biomedce...

On 2020-11-03 14:18:18, user Jonas Svensson wrote:

Paper now published in Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis:

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11...

On 2020-11-03 17:26:53, user Nicanor Austriaco, OP wrote:

The preprint has been published at the Philippine Journal of Science: https://philjournalsci.dost...

On 2020-11-05 02:41:54, user Robert Stephens wrote:

This is a nice study!

"Interestingly, among children with symptoms compatible with COVID-19, only 11% (1/9) of those tested with RT-PCR were positive, while 60% (12/20) seroconverted. "

Perhaps some of the PCR -ve / seropositive children had gastrointestinal disease. Was there a pattern of symptoms for this group? Faecal / rectal PCR might have been interesting.

Dr Robert Stephens MB BS FACD

On 2020-11-05 16:58:58, user Sorin Draghici wrote:

Hi, Thanks for your great work. Your preprint refers to patients 1 through 20 plus patients A-D. The associated GEO dataset GSE150316 has only patients 1 through 12 but then A through J. The GEO data set also has 7 samples allegedly from placenta. Can you please clarify this? Which 20 patients are referred to in the paper? How about the placenta sample?

On 2020-11-06 23:19:58, user Ali K wrote:

Another good proof point showing CD4 and CD8 responses to a dual vaccine approach. Interesting perspective to use previously infected serum

On 2020-11-07 10:52:37, user Jesper Kivelä wrote:

Ollila and coworkers have erroneously [based on their data and R code (1)] calculated standard errors (SE) for individual studies without first taking natural logarithm of upper and lower bound of confidence interval (CI) as would be appropriate in the case of ratio measures, like relative risk (RR).

For example, SE was 0.204 for one of the included studies [reference 17 in study by Ollila and coworkers (2)], which is smaller than correct SE of 0.643. Naturally, too small SE will produce too narrow CI, which is evident, for example, from the Figure 3A in their study (2).

I replicated result highlighted in the abstract (2) based on a maximum follow-up [RR 0.61 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.96)] using R meta package and its metagen function. Replicated RR was 0.77 (95% CI 0.57 to 1.05) across 5 studies based on random-effects model with the use DerSimonian-Laird estimator for between-study variance. In sensitivity analysis, RR was 0.72 (95% CI 0.39 to 1.33) using the recommended methods for random-effects modeling with a small number of studies (3).

I first pointed out calculation errors in the study by Ollila and coworkers at Twitter, and as of submitting this comment statistical code provided by the authors in (1) is still under review for possible changes and corrections.

References

1. https://github.com/OllilaLa... (first accessed 7 August)
2. Ollila HM, Partinen M, Koskela J, et al. medRxiv 2020.07.31.20166116
3. Langan D, Higgins JPT, Jackson D, et al. Res Synth Methods 2019;10:83-98

On 2020-11-07 13:40:48, user kdrl nakle wrote:

Why would you need a surrogate? You did not explain anything about the relation between this virus and SARS-CoV-2. The title is misleading.

On 2020-11-13 09:01:22, user Suneet Sood wrote:

Sir, I applaud the very well-written study. The data is valuable. I do suggest that we should be cautious with the conclusions, however. The aim of this study was "to evaluate the impact of SORT interval on clinical outcomes". It was not "to evaluate the impact of SORT interval on clinical outcomes in SORT groups <=9 vs > 9". In other words, the <= 9 and > 9 groups were not declared a priori. I think a better conclusion would be "Our study suggests that the results in these two groups are different, and should be confirmed by a trial in which patients are randomized into these two groups."

On 2020-11-16 08:49:06, user Mike Maglothin wrote:

I've seen several studies attributing all excess deaths to CoVid. I agree... BUT.. what they show in their modeling is a correlation to CoVid. The excess deaths could very easily be from delayed procedures or people being unwilling/unable to get a procedure done in a timely fashion. I know many procedures were delayed, especially during the beginning of the pandemic when hospitals were being "reserved" for CoVid. Would be interesting to see the Excess death correlation only after August.

On 2021-09-13 15:48:07, user Bennie Schut wrote:

In a followup it might be interesting to compare myocarditis requiring hospitalizations in both vaccine and covid groups. Not all myocarditis requires hospitalization and being infected now seems more of a when than an if. We already know covid causes myocarditis, so for risk assessment we would need to understand if one is better than the other. This study doesn't show this yet. But very interesting nevertheless.

On 2022-03-04 16:06:11, user Tracy Beth Høeg, MD, PhD wrote:

The peer reviewed version including numerous international datasets estimating rates of post vaccination myocarditis is now available. We have included risk-benefit calculations for children with a history of infection and used overall infection hospitalization risks (rather than just 120 days risks) both pre and during omicron. http://doi.org/10.1111/eci....

On 2021-08-20 23:43:57, user Chris Raberts wrote:

Can the authors explain how they conclude that lowering the particles in the air reduce the chance of infection? Seeing the sheer amount of particles exhaled this seems like a drop in the bucket, even at 50% reduction.

If you cant swim it doesnt matter if you fall in a lake or the ocean.

On 2021-08-21 04:36:50, user Fergal Daly wrote:

This applies linear regression to cumulative cases against NPI scores. It does not specify any model that justifies this. Simple models suggest a linear relationship between NPI scores and estimated R_t or log(case-growth). No model would suggest a linear relationship between these two. In the simplest example, if NPIs bring R_t below 0.9 it leads to very few cumulative deaths, with no much difference between very strict and less-strict, as long as R_t is < 0.9. Conversely, all NPI that leave R_t above 1.1 , lead to explosive growth and very similar large numbers of cumulative deaths. The relationship is highly non-linear and applying linear regression has no justification. The statistically significant outcome must be either chance or systematic result of the mis-specification.

On 2021-08-27 04:39:32, user William Brooks wrote:

The authors use cumulative deaths from June 2020 but don't explain why they omit deaths before June 2020 (i.e., the <br /> whole first wave). Since many of the deaths during the omitted period <br /> occurred in states with strict NPIs such as Maryland (Fig.1a), this probably biases the results in favor of stricter states since they would have had smaller susceptible populations after the first wave than other states. Another study got around this problem by excluding northeastern states from the main analysis of the summer wave and including them in the analysis of the autumn/winter wave [1]. Because different NPIs were introduced/lifted at different times in different states, it would be interesting to see how consistent the correlation between NPI strictness and cases/deaths is during different waves.

Also, Fig. 3a shows that case trajectories are clearly effected by geography, so rather than directly compare two states with different NPI strictness from different regions (Maryland and Tennessee), it might be more informative to compare two states with different NPI strictness from the same region (e.g., Louisiana and Florida).

[1] https://escipub.com/Article...

On 2021-08-23 09:38:01, user Valerio Marra wrote:

Now published in Scientific Reports doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-95004-8

On 2021-08-23 23:20:52, user Toa_Greening wrote:

The said method "aspirin once daily until discharge" was not meet as only "5040 (77%) received aspirin on most days following randomisation(>=90% of the days from randomisation". Therefore the aspirin treated group data of 7351 is contaminated with patients who did NOT have "aspirin once daily until discharge".

It is recommended to redo the analysis using only the "5040 (77%) received aspirin on most days following randomisation(>=90% of the days from randomisation" as the aspirin group.

On 2021-08-24 08:23:27, user Meerwind7 wrote:

I like to praise that an assessment like this is possible only in a "No-Covid" environment where extensive contact tracing of individual cases is possible.

The conclusion about the difficulties to contain transmission even in this setting, i.e. with rare infections that allow extensive contact tracing ("individual-based interventions such as case isolation, contact tracing and quarantine"), points to the near-impossibility to contain Delta in the larger part of the world, even with more voccination.

On 2021-08-24 18:06:02, user Skeptic wrote:

23andMe has an article about this on its website, in which the company listed the WRONG reference SNP number. According to this pre-print, it's rs7688383, but 23's 6/2/21 article claims it's rs7868383. In any case apparently the v.5 chip did not include this SNP as I can't find it in the raw data for any of the five kits I manage at 23.

Kind of important to proof read, 23andMe, if you expect to develop and maintain credibility: https://you.23andme.com/p/8...

On 2021-08-25 06:23:02, user L Wong wrote:

This pre-print was submitted to the peer reviewed "Japanese Journal of Radiology" and was accepted on 6th of Jan, 2021. The content had been revised according to the reviewers suggestion and comment and the title of the article was revised as "Convolutional neural network in nasopharyngeal carcinoma: How good is automatic delineation for primary tumor on a non-contrast-enhanced fat-suppressed T2-weighted MRI?”. Readers can find the latest version of the article in the link:

https://link.springer.com/a...

.

On 2021-08-26 05:47:36, user MarcoBonechi wrote:

You assume 2-3 students being infected at the beginning. Out of 500 students. 2.5/500=0.005 i.e. 500 cases per 100k.<br /> That's 10x actual Aug-2021 US rate at 46 (https://www.nytimes.com/int... "https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/world/covid-cases.html)").<br /> 18x the CA rate of 26.

Your study has <10% chance of happening?

Please explain.

You should redo the study using several scenarios using randomized chances of a student being positive from outside.

Then also randomize symptoms, as symptomatic cases will stop spreading or be caught altogether before reaching school.

Then also randomize mask failure rate, badly worn masks, ineffective masks etc..

Finally add testing with weekly or twice-weekly universal antigen with their success rate.

You got to put more work!

On 2021-08-26 16:37:49, user Larry Melniker wrote:

The issue with Dr Hoffe conjecture is connecting D Dimer results, which are nonspecific, with serious ischemic events, which require specific testing results. He may be speculating on a True-True, but unrelated phenomena; otherwise D Dimer would be a routine part of ACS rule out work-up.

On 2021-09-10 15:49:38, user skeptonomist wrote:

The paper shows very conclusively that the vaccine reduces infection rate. Because the overall death rate among those infected is small (on the order of 1-2% at most), the expected number of deaths in the placebo group is not large enough for a meaningful test of how death rate is affected.

On 2021-08-27 17:40:44, user David Wells wrote:

Table 1a shows that your 'vaccinated individuals' group exhibited higher rates of comorbidities. Comorbidities are therefore possibly correlated with vaccination. The model results show insignificant comorbidity effects, suggesting the possibility that your 'vaccination' effect is really (or partially) a case of stolen significance. Did you try removing the vaccination variable to find out if comorbidities then become significant? Or what if you matched on comorbidity rates, not just demographics?

On 2021-08-28 02:02:35, user Jonas Ferris wrote:

While it may be that natural immunity offers more protection than vaccine immunity, there seems to be some problems here:

How can you adjust for the issue that some in the previously infected group died, presumably those most susceptible to symptomatic infection while the vaccinated group likely has many of these most susceptible still in the group?

As the overall infection rate seems quite low (<2%) in the vaccinated group, though many multiples of the even lower numbers in the previously infected (and death screened) group (leading to sensationally high multiples of up to ’27-fold risk’) is it possible that many of these infected could have been deceased had they not been vaccinated?

I understand there are adjustments for comorbidities, but there is no real way to determine who would have died from a group with comorbidities yet they may not exist in the previously infected group.

Why are there so few people above 60 in the study (<5%) when this age groups is over 15% of the population over 16 and the very age group that is most likely to have serious symptomatic infection? How many went to the hospital from this group in both the vaccinated and previously infected groups?

Early seekers of vaccines were likely more at risk of death from Covid than those that were not as worried and didn’t (or couldn’t) get a vaccine in Jan/Feb.

Your two groups are basically those that were fearful of catching Covid and those that didn’t see it as much of a risk to them. These are groups that may have very different risks of testing positive for Covid even if they both received vaccines at the same time.

Those that received a vaccine after almost a year of watching out for the virus may have acted in a more risky fashion after getting vaccinated - the pendulum swung even further than the no vaccine group (who may not have known they were somewhat immune)?

Given these shortcomings, it seems like a more reasonable conclusion than natural immunity is 7 fold+ stronger than vaccine immunity after a few months, is that while both natural immunity and vaccine immunity offer similar substantial absolute protection from serious infection, for those in an age group already less likely to have serious infection, that has already made it through one infection without dying a significant population screening event of those most susceptible to serious Covid infection, symptomatic infection from Covid is less likely than for those that have self-identified as at risk and have been vaccinated for but not exposed to Covid.

As fears of wanning immunity may lead to over consumption of limited resources of Covid vaccines globally, a conclusion that is more likely to lead to the unvaccinated seeking vaccination while discouraging the already vaccinated to seek an aggressive booster timeline would be more appropriate as opposed to one that could rationalize seeking natural immunity and encourage frequent boosters to the previously vaccinated.

On 2021-08-28 14:41:37, user RC Cyberwarrior wrote:

I have read comments based on medical studies that individuals who previously had SARS COV2 were 2 -4 times more likely to suffer adverse reactions to the covid vaccines, if vaccinated post initial infection. Some speculate this reaction was related to Antibody-Dependent Enhancement.

On 2021-08-30 00:15:54, user chris amos wrote:

An important paper and carefully conducted study, but it would be useful if the authors would provide a figure or table starting with the overall cohort size, indicating the total numbers of events according to vaccination versus infection or first vaccination among infected. Given the data that are provided I do not know how to accurately calculate a positive predictive value of having been vaccinated, which is another statistic that is of interest. Also, when the authors refer to the analyses as 'multivariate', I think the more accurate way to refer to the analyses is "multivariable". Multivariate would mean that multiple outcomes (vaccinated only, infected only or vaccinated and infected) are jointly modeled, but it seems like the comparison groups are analyzed in separate analyses.

On 2021-08-30 22:42:54, user Chris Curry wrote:

You would think this would be common knowledge seeing as all a vaccine does is simulate a person getting infected in order to force their body into building immunity to the virus. If natural immunity wasn't a thing then vaccination wouldn't be a thing either, but for some reason the country has decided that you have to be either "pro vaccine" or "anti-vaccine" without entertaining any sort of nuance.

On 2021-08-31 22:30:55, user Fully wrote:

Thank you for the interesting and easy-to-understand study - and the clear results: Recovered people are actually much better protected against the now predominant delta variant of Covid-19 and thus less contagious than vaccinated people, even if the infection occurred more than 6 months ago.<br /> Policymakers in Europe, who grant recovered people the same rights as vaccinated people for only 6 months after their infection, should now remove their 6-month rule based on your study results.

Thank you for this from someone who has recovered since one year, who does not want to be vaccinated, because he did well with the disease - me.

On 2021-09-02 09:13:39, user zlmark wrote:

There are several issues with the way the cohort in this study have been formed - the most critical one is the age distribution:

The 60+ group extremely underrepresented - the cohorts contain about 5-6% of people aged 60 and above, whereas they amount to about 31% of the vaccinated people in Israel. And since their own regressions show that the age is a major factor in infectability, such underrepresentation can seriously affect the risk ratio estimates.

On 2021-10-16 15:43:33, user Alex wrote:

Oh and on natural immunity, myself, partner and two children had COVID March 2020, both antibody tests came back May 2021 positive. Currently waiting for the results of an updated one…. We have also not had anything with similar symptoms since but in two weeks I fly to Barcelona with a tonne of red tape because I’m not vaccinated and I don’t find it fair…My partner loses her job along with 40 people in Hampshire social care next month because they opted for no vaccine, a big gap in care looking after our grandparents - good luck with that!- my point is,why is natural immunity not accepted??it’s simple to test for so questions need to be raised!

On 2021-08-30 07:51:38, user Candice Chaplin wrote:

It states that the GENECUBE® HQ SARS-CoV-2 (TOYOBO Co., Ltd.) reagent was approved in October, 2021. As a layman, I don't quite understand this.

On 2021-08-30 14:40:54, user Nathan Johnson wrote:

Hi Sean, table 2 is the attention getting graph with the large drop but it mixes tests at all different ages so it's harder to read. It'd be better to see a graph by time for separate groups of 3 months old, 6 month old and 12 months old (or similar). Since table 4 shows "Overall, we note no significant reductions in development trends." taking out the older groups who didn't drop should make the drop in 2021 even more dramatic, no? Also if masking was used in first few months in children born prepandemic without a drop, could point more strongly to prenatal cause.

On 2021-10-08 05:09:07, user Anya Dunham wrote:

Hi Sean and team, as a scientist and a mom of a 2020 baby, I read your paper with interest. Similar to Pasco, I wondered about the effects of masks. I am also wondering whether babies might have exhibited some form of a 'freeze' response, as some might have not left their homes or neighborhoods much... In an exaggerated example, I would probably do okay on a cognitive test in my home or your lab, but perhaps not so well if I were abducted by aliens... which a lab setting might feel like to babies born during the pandemic.

Similarly, there could be a novelty effect. Given that babies learn by figuring out patterns and experiencing novel events, I wonder if everything in the lab visit was so new that babies who didn't 'freeze' had a harder time paying focused attention to the task at hand. (I see you already mentioned something similar below.) I imagine even following a shape with their eyes might be more challenging if baby is greatly distracted by the novelty of a visit. I can see my summer 2020 baby having this challenge, although he has amazing focus when playing independently at home. I think some measure(s) from the home environment taken by the family would be important here.

Lastly, how did the families join the study? Did they self-identify? (As a side note, I would have liked to see more details in the Methods section - perhaps I am missing an Appendix?) At least where we live, getting an appointment with a pediatrician has been much more challenging during the pandemic. So I wondered if families who had some concerns around their babies' development (even subconscious ones) could have been more likely to join.

On 2021-08-30 15:16:42, user Jeff Brender wrote:

For those wondering about the decrease in PhD respondents from the last version<br /> From the Methods section<br /> "To be included in the analysis sample, participants had to complete the questions on vaccine uptake and intent, and report a gender other than “prefer to self-describe.”. This exclusion was made after discovering that the majority of fill-in responses for self-described gender were political/discriminatory statements or otherwise questionable answers (e.g. Apache Helicopter or Unicorn), and that as a group, those who selected self-described gender (<1% of the sample) had a high frequency of uncommon responses (e.g., Hispanic ethnicity [41.4%], the oldest age group [23.2% >=75 years] and highest education level [28.1% Doctorate]), suggesting the survey was not completed in good faith. "

On 2021-08-30 16:11:49, user Eduardo Amorim ????????? wrote:

Can you please explain how mf is calculated? You ms says "Mf was calculated as described previously [3]." But ref. #3 doesn't explain how mf is calculated -- at least I can't see it.

On 2021-08-31 10:15:07, user Isatou Sarr wrote:

Excellent paper,

the route of therapeutic administration usually plays a pivotal role in immune cells activation, type as well as robustness. Mucosally induced immunological tolerance has become an attractive strategy for diagnostics and treatment of diseases, although there is a need to fully understand the dynamics of mucosal-tolerance immunotherapy as well as efficient antigen delivery and adjuvant systems.

Additionally, the genetically diverse human subjects who also differ significantly in their mucosal flora, nutritional status and previous immunological/environmental exposure, all of which are factors that can been affect mucosal vaccine efficacy.

On the brighter side of life :)))), if practical assays for assessing mucosal immune cells reactivity in research settings are developed as well as methods for predicting efficacy of candidate mucosal immunotherapeutics, harnessing the therapeutic potentials of the<br /> mucosal immune pathway can be a reality.

Thank you.

On 2021-09-01 04:18:17, user John Smith wrote:

Surgical face masks at best have a 3.4 fold decrease in aerosols if worn perfectly, but in this case the typical imperfect fit would drop this down to about a 1 fold decrease. The math in this simulation is far off the mark compared to detailed peer reviewed experiments. Too many incorrect assumptions made in the simulation.

https://www.sciencedirect.c...

On 2021-09-01 17:28:59, user Elle Tigre wrote:

What was the specific time-frame for the 4-fold increase in evolutionary rate?

On 2021-09-04 19:24:55, user melanoficus wrote:

Very encouraging results. I wish these investigators great success in their endeavours to find and implement beneficial treatment protocols that will save lives of those severely effected.

On 2023-01-15 02:42:48, user Peter lange wrote:

I agree with the other commenters. The description of training is inadequate to determine if the dogs are detecting acute and chronic stress, which canines have been trained to do with high reliability. Without further information the conclusions are unsupported by evidence presented.

On 2022-01-13 17:30:19, user jetbundle wrote:

How were the dogs trained? Were they trained on the sweat of infected (symtomatic or asymptomatic?) people or on isolated viruses?

The authors should answer this. That makes the difference whether the dogs simply identify sick patients or whether it has anything to do with the virus.

On 2023-08-08 19:34:44, user Xiaoping Liu wrote:

The author has published this paper in PLoS One with a revised title: "Analytical solution of l-i SEIR model – Comparison of l-i SEIR model with conventional SEIR model in simulation of epidemic curves". PLoS One. 2023; 18(6): e0287196.<br /> Published online 2023 Jun 14. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287196

On 2021-12-25 16:37:09, user Markus wrote:

In the light of the negative vaccine efficiency, why do they conclude that there is the need for massive rollout of vaccinations and booster vaccinations? The vaccines appear to undermine the natural immunity.

On 2022-02-03 17:13:18, user Brian R Wood wrote:

Has the study accounted for the fact that if Omicron has less severe symptoms than Delta or COVID-19 Classic, the number of reported infections is likely to be significantly lower? Additionally, I would speculate that those who got vaccinated and boosted are also more likely to be tested than those who did not, but just speculation, no data to back it up.

On 2022-01-09 17:05:04, user rubenroa wrote:

Any reason for the increased Odd in vaccinated people against other studies in Israel which conclude: "Vaccination with at least two doses of COVID-19 vaccine was associated <br /> with a substantial decrease in reporting the most common post-acute <br /> COVID19 symptoms."https://www.medrxiv.org/con...

On 2022-01-10 23:20:22, user Litawor wrote:

The previous version of this preprint additionally described adjusted <br /> analysis with important covariates related to vaccination status and <br /> vaccination timing. Why is that analysis omitted in this version? <br /> Matching does not remove the need for statistical adjustment.

On 2022-01-13 09:48:09, user zlmark wrote:

There seems to be some discrepancy between the actual calculations and the conclusions drawn in the Discussion section.

Assuming that Copenhagen data provides us with a more reliable estimate of the gatherings size distribution, as the authors themselves seem to suggest, limiting the gatherings of 100+ gives us about 40% reduction in the number of infections in a single infection cycle.

And given that Omicron mean serial interval is estimated to be around 2.2, this means that about 3 infection cycle happen in a week, and 40% reduction in single cycle leads to about 80% reduction in a week.

On 2022-01-13 14:50:32, user Erik Petersen wrote:

One of the findings that is going to be predominantly taken from this study is that, "vaccinated individuals have significantly lower IVTs." However, upon looking at the data in Figure 4A specifically, we see just under 3 (2.9?) FFU/ml in unvaccinated individuals compared to ~2 FFU/ml in vaccinated individuals. Would you please explain how this constitutes a "significant" reduction?

On 2022-01-17 19:49:07, user AW wrote:

Some errors in text and tables I’m afraid. In text you report the IRR for men <40 years as “7.60 (2.44 - 4.78)” for 3rd dose for Pfizer which clearly is nonsensical -looks you have used the 95%CI for second dose repeated in error. And you have reported the number of events as * for 3rd dose Pfizer in men under 40 years in table rather than number - should have a numerical value.

Given these are probably the most important impactful data you present it’s a bit embarrassing to not get this right - but shows why peer -review is needed (and makes me wonder what else might be incorrect)

On 2022-01-19 16:21:44, user xavier wrote:

Hi, fig 4/inset d, shouldn't line one of the first line read "infection WA1" instead of "infection B1"? <br /> Thanks

On 2022-01-23 21:31:37, user maa jdl wrote:

This paper is a total nonsense!<br /> Why applying the Benford law?<br /> There is no reason. And the paper does not contradict that!<br /> On the contrary.<br /> You just need to look at the data to understand WHY the Benford law doesn't apply!<br /> This is what I did and ONE simple picture can reveal it in a much clearer way than a long paper with a lot of references. This can be done with no references at all! The chi² test is useful there only to give numbers on what is obvious from the picture.

On 2021-10-13 17:03:08, user constantinos schinas wrote:

very interesting article. can you breakdown the calculation for the ie. <br /> 13,080 tests, 100 positives, 20% FNR and 0,8%FPR, in a way we can replicate it in an excel document? In two cases, stable 20%FNR and variable 0-40% FNR.

thank you in advance

On 2022-01-27 21:22:51, user Michael Klar wrote:

They have NOT done their homework:

This investigation uses no suitable surrugate for human aerosols. These consist mostly of mucin5 and this is a hydrogel. Hydrogels behave differently than the one used Serum. This is reflected in the Shrinkage factor of 2.5 versus 4-5 in humans.

The results of the preprint should not be evaluated, as another previously published study shows that the liquid composition is crucial for the inactivation rate:

https://www.pnas.org/conten...

On 2022-01-28 20:26:50, user Dylan Arroyo wrote:

What happens to the patient with a suicidal ideation while they wait for sobriety? Are they restrained/sedated? Do they wait in the waiting room until they have sobered up before they can be seen by a social worker?

On 2022-01-28 20:26:41, user Hussein Turfe wrote:

Was there any relation found between those who had THC in their urine and coming into the ED stating that they had a suicidal ideation?

On 2022-01-28 20:33:22, user Mohamad Kabbani wrote:

Fantastic article! Very informative and the ideas are easy to understand. This is a good baseline to get a better understanding on how different things have become during and after covid-19. We can learn what a pandemic can do to a population and compare it to this data as a reference point.

On 2022-02-02 06:38:43, user Marcel Zwahlen wrote:

The fulll paper is now out here on Ann Int Medicine

https://www.acpjournals.org...

On 2022-02-02 19:32:41, user Eric D wrote:

This is on Sky News as<br /> BA.2 "More likely to infect vaccinated people"!

SSI report is ambiguous<br /> https://en.ssi.dk/news/news...

The headline<br /> "BA.2 is more transmissible than BA.1 but vaccinated persons are less likely to be infected and to pass on infection"<br /> contradicts a sentence that looks badly-written or edited<br /> "In addition, comparing the risk of household members being infected in BA.2 relative to BA.1 infected households, was higher in vaccinated and booster vaccinated than in unvaccinated, which suggests immune evasive properties of the BA.2 variant."

On 2022-02-08 07:24:12, user Ole Stein wrote:

Misleading and biased conclusions based on wrongfully datatreatment, where they have mixed vaxed with unvaxed, and so unvaxed included all vaxed less than 14 days since last shot and all vaxed include unvased post illness. Such mix is not just unetical, but makes the conclusion completely useless as it does not say anything about contamination between vaxed and unvaxed as they are mixed in their data input. The report should be discarded and removed as fraudulent science.

On 2022-02-07 07:06:22, user kdrl nakle wrote:

5 days after sympton onset? Apparently flawed sampling. You showed nothing as Omicron has faster clearance anyway.

On 2022-02-07 23:20:52, user A440 wrote:

The report says: "The analyses were adjusted for [...] booster dose and time since last dose among the vaccinated."

For those of us wondering whether to get a booster dose, it would be good to know more about how this adjustment was done.

On 2022-02-17 10:51:48, user Sandeep Sharma wrote:

where do I find the latest on COVAXIN approval in Germany?

On 2022-02-22 02:12:34, user Juliet French wrote:

Nice paper. You may want to check out one of our papers. Moradi Marjaneh et al, Genome Biology 2020. PMID: 31910864. Some similarities between yours and ours.

On 2022-02-23 03:43:25, user Sam Wigginton wrote:

Deaths in South Africa are still climbing steadily three months after the Omicron infection peak (according to Worldometer). The case fatality rate (assuming 3 week lag) appears to have risen from 0.7% three months ago to about 8% now. What's going on?

On 2022-03-23 16:58:16, user Stefan Baeuml wrote:

It would be interesting to have a follow up study in the presence of Omicron. In particular, given the increased likelihood of breakthrough infections, it would be interesting to see if the likelihood of the symptoms mentioned in the 'Results' section still remains within the background of people without SARS-CoV-2 infection.

On 2022-04-08 12:13:33, user Tommy Brothers wrote:

The peer-reviewed version of this manuscript is now published online in Drug and Alcohol Dependence

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2022.109440

On 2022-04-11 18:32:10, user ReviewNinja wrote:

Thanks you for this fast publication. This publication confirms:<br /> - that people can be reinfected with BA.1 after delta infection<br /> - that people can be reinfected with BA.2 after BA.1 (but that this seems rather a rare event)

However, this publication shows some clear limitations that would need some discussion:<br /> - This publication gives an advice on testing policy, but does not discuss the testing policies at the moment of the study. This is important as this policy changed over the period of the study and was different during some periods for vaccinated and non-vaccinated individuals. Also a correction for testing behavior over time per age group would be useful. <br /> - The publication compares the number of reinfections (01/12 to 10/03) to the vaccinated population on 10/03. As the advice for vaccination for children 5-11 only came out on 15/12, this is an overestimation for the whole study period. The same is true for boosters in the younger age groups. <br /> Vaccination % at the different periods in the study: <br /> %For each age group (age in 2021) on: 01/12, 01/01, 07/02 and 10/03<br /> 5-11y (2 doses): 9 (probably most already 12y), 10, 20, 41<br /> 12-17y (3 doses): 0.5, 2, 11, 33<br /> 18-44y (3 doses): 7, 25, 70, 75<br /> 45-64y (3 doses): 13, 56, 88, 89<br /> The changing vaccination rate over time should be taken into account, or this comparison should not be made. Furthermore, most measured reinfections were in the first study period (<feb 7:="" 91="" of="" the="" 96="" reinfections).="" some="" other="" points="" to="" discuss:="" -="" the="" conclusions="" (and="" abstract)="" are="" rather="" strong.="" to="" advise="" a="" change="" in="" (pcr-)testing="" policy,="" at="" least="" reinfection="" versus="" residual="" pcr-detection="" should="" be="" compared="" discussed.="" reinfection="" during="" this="" short="" period="" measured="" in="" this="" paper="" is="" 0.16="" and="" 0.01%="" (with="" off="" course="" all="" biases="" and="" limitations).="" we="" know="" from="" a="" challenge="" study="" that="" 1="" 3="" young="" people="" (in="" these="" conditions="" in="" this="" small="" study)="" still="" test="" (low)="" positive="" after="" 28="" days="" for="" example="" (https:="" <a href="www.nature.com" title="www.nature.com">www.nature.com="" articles="" s41591-022-01780-9).="" -="" how="" was="" the="" n-gene="" cut="" off="" determined="" here?="" (it="" would="" be="" of="" added="" value="" to="" also="" confirm="" which="" percentage="" really="" resulted="" in="" detectable="" virus="" (specially="" for="" study="" period="" 2).)="" additionally,="" a="" look="" at="" the="" viral="" loads="" might="" be="" of="" added="" value,="" as="" done="" by="" the="" study="" by="" stegger="" (ref="" 9).="" they="" suggest="" a="" more="" transient="" infection="" upon="" reinfection="" with="" ba.2="" after="" ba.1.="" (would="" be="" nice="" to="" know="" the="" testing="" indications="" for="" these="" people="" as="" well.)="">

On 2022-05-11 01:52:14, user bioRxiv wrote:

This preprint is participating in the Comment-a-thon pilot initiative by bioRxiv/medRxiv at the Biology of Genomes CSHL meeting. You can enter the competition if you are registered for this conference by signing up using the link provided at the meeting. Remember to add #BoG22 to your comments.

On 2022-06-14 13:31:27, user Peter J. Yim wrote:

This comment is to clarify that the study showed an unequivocal benefit from ivermectin in COVID-19. From the abstract, the primary outcome considered in the study was: "...time to sustained recovery, defined as achieving at least 3 consecutive days without symptoms." The outcome did not reach statistical significance for that outcome. However, for the related secondary outcome "mean time unwell" the outcome was statistically significant and favored ivermectin.

MTU was estimated "...from a Bayesian, longitudinal, ordinal regression model with covariates age (as restricted cubic spline) and calendar time." The principal finding of the study was that there was a statistically significant difference in MTU between the treatment and control groups: -0.49 (95% CrI: -0.82, -0.15) where CrI refers to "credible interval". The negative range of the 95% credible interval indicates that MTU was lower for the treatment group than the control group.

The authors conclude that the trial "...did not identify a clinically relevant treatment effect ...". The magnitude of the treatment effect found in this trial may or may not be clinically relevant, but clinical relevance is not a statistical quantity and establishing it was not a goal of the trial.

On 2022-08-14 15:08:34, user Peter J. Yim wrote:

The trial registration at ClinicalTrials.gov listed three primary endpoints:<br /> 1. Number of hospitalizations as measured by patient reports. [ Time Frame: Up to 14 days ]<br /> 2. Number of deaths as measured by patient reports [ Time Frame: Up to 14 days ]<br /> 3. Number of symptoms as measured by patient reports [ Time Frame: Up to 14 days ]

The publication reports the outcomes for none of those endpoints. (the endpoints were changed after publication on ClinicalTrials.gov)

1. The rate of hospitalization was reported at 28 days. That was registered as a secondary outcome.
2. Mortality was reported at 28 days. That was registered as a secondary outcome.
3. The number of symptoms was only reported at baseline.

This article is close to irrelevance on the question of the efficacy of ivermectin in COVID-19.

On 2022-06-18 09:09:00, user David Escors wrote:

The preprint is still a work in progress before submitting it for publication. It has an error in the definition of the cohort and in Table 1. The correct statement defining the cohort previous to the correction of the manuscript would be :"The majority of patients were smokers, 75% male and the mutational status of the tumors was not evaluated in 96.4% of the patients".

On 2022-08-01 00:35:38, user JJ wrote:

Looks like some numbers are inconsistent, eg 146 vs 158 and 303 vs 301 in the unmasked group.

On 2022-08-01 22:06:02, user Saiful Islam wrote:

The authors also need to clarify masks vs respirators as they provide different level of protection.

On 2025-11-11 14:07:07, user Evolutionary Health Group wrote:

We at the Evolutionary Health Group ( https://evoheal.github.io/) "https://evoheal.github.io/)") really enjoyed this paper.

Here are our highlights:

The authors applied metagenomic sequencing to samples from multiple wastewater treatment plants to characterize the diversity and abundance of antibiotic resistance genes. Using a standardized bioinformatics pipeline, they quantified ARG classes relative to total microbial DNA, and compared treatment efficiency across plants.

They observed that water leaving the treatment plant still harbored a broad spectrum of ARGs, including multidrug-resistance genes.

The authors describe wastewater treatment plants as both sources and potential intervention points for antibiotic resistance by emphasizing that improved engineering and coordinated antibiotic-management strategies could limit the spread of resistance genes in urban systems.

These findings indicate that monitoring of municipal wastewater may serve as a real-time surveillance tool for community-level antibiotic resistance burden and inform outbreak preparedness.

On 2021-12-01 22:19:03, user Kevin J. Black, M.D. wrote:

You'll want to cite and discuss this article:<br /> Snowden JS, Craufurd D, Griffiths HL, Neary D. Awareness of involuntary movements in Huntington disease. Archives of Neurology. 1998;55(6):801-805.

On 2021-05-27 10:15:21, user Qian Dong wrote:

Code is now available through: https://github.com/s0810110...

On 2020-12-03 21:43:53, user kdrl nakle wrote:

It could also be that association is purely coincidental. Meaning people that die more often are older people and they are also more likely to be vitamin D deficient. So you really have nothing here.

On 2020-04-05 22:12:33, user Soarintothesky wrote:

What delay was used for the time adjustment. A 10 day delay for cases>deaths in the Aneirin Bevan University Health Board in Gwent in South Wales shows a 22% CFR.

On 2020-06-04 00:48:58, user James Van Zandt wrote:

Vitamin C is a common supplement. I suggest you track whether patients had taken vitamin C (and how much) before or in the early stages of their illness. If it is helpful, then we would like to know when it is most helpful.

On 2020-04-10 00:26:48, user Brothers in arm wrote:

Curious to know why the BCG vaccination last only about 20 years. I have had mine as an infant, without any further boosters. Still my skin tuberculin test remains reactive after almost 50 years. The reaction subsides before follow up check on day 3. This is read as negative for active TB. I assume the slight reaction as due to having had BCG, and I still have immunity. People who never had it do not get any reaction or erythema. Maybe any immunization can confer some cross immunity?

On 2020-04-02 07:42:02, user japhetk wrote:

I don't know why, but medrxiv keeps deleting my warning comments.

So, I write brief comments again.

This study doesn't control important variables as kept suggested in comments and probably the findings are due to spurious correlations.

The one of uncontrolled important variable is "when the infection spread in the country". This study should have used the measure like "number of deaths or patients 10 days after 100th patients were detected in the country". Other analyses are doing that.<br /> The second uncontrolled important variable is "how long the country advanced BCG measure". UK, for example, advanced the BCG measure for more than 50 years. So, majority of nations are experienced with BCG.<br /> The third uncontrolled important variable is GDP. You can see the most of nations without BCG is Western rich countries which can do more tests, which are popular from tourists.<br /> I did analyses controlling these variables, and all the correlations between the length of BCG measure with coronavirus data (how fast the 100th patients were detected in the country, number of patients or deaths ten days after the 100th patients were detected in the country) are all insignificant. They did not even show the statistical tendencies.

Many people have wrong ideas how effective BCG is though this preprint. Somebody has to give warnings. Please do not delete this warning.

On 2020-06-30 08:50:43, user Simon Liebing wrote:

I have 2 questions to the study:<br /> What explanation have the authors that only 2 of 5 indicators are positive?<br /> Why the virus vanishes after March 2019 again?

On 2020-06-30 11:18:06, user Kevin McKernan wrote:

Interesting work. Great to see the qPCR replicated at another lab and spike in controls.<br /> It would be very helpful to sequence the Amplicons to see if any variation exists that can augment the phylogenetkcs of the disease.

On 2020-06-30 14:50:46, user Munir Hazbun wrote:

https://journals.lww.com/cc...

On 2020-06-30 21:40:24, user David Sbabo wrote:

"Anonymized raw data were extracted from the abovementioned databases on<br /> July 2, 2020."

July 2?

On 2020-07-01 22:29:58, user John wrote:

Loneliness is prevalent in COVID-19 crisis. Patients with Coronavirus are more lonely during the pandemic. Interesting findings for health psychology, psychological impact, public health, epidemiology and psychiatry.

On 2021-12-31 13:45:45, user Allan Lorentzen wrote:

What does negative effectiveness mean?

On 2021-12-28 00:53:06, user Drew wrote:

Two issues need to be corrected for in the data before any real conclusions can be drawn. First, is there a relationship between age stratification, higher vaccination status and higher symptomatic disease - i.e., Simpson's Paradox. Second, was there a behavioral reason that impacted the results? For example, if vaccinations were required for admittance to crowded venue during the initial spike in Omicron cases, it would have skewed the results toward negative effectiveness.

On 2020-07-07 14:29:11, user Anika Knuppel wrote:

This article has been accepted for publication in the International Journal <br /> of Epidemiology, published by Oxford University Press.

On 2020-07-07 18:11:59, user Tajemniczy don Pedro wrote:

Makes sense. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih...

On 2021-01-26 03:42:24, user Terran Melconian wrote:

Thanks for sharing this very interesting article.

On page 6, for the definition of the x and z transforms, they are both given as sin(2*pi*t/tau). One of them is presumably meant to be a cosine, right?

On 2020-06-21 11:55:23, user Dirk Monsieur wrote:

Rough estimate: 1% infected at 12th of March; chances that 84 random people are not infected: 0,99^84 = 43%<br /> I'm not a statistical expert, but I think a power analysis would be good.

On 2020-07-13 22:41:50, user Jim Coote wrote:

I share the concerns expressed in the previous 2 comments. Surely the decrease in antibody levels would be entirely expected after the primary response. The acid test would surely be whether there was a good secondary response to any Covid19 based antigen. Any analysis of that should examine the cell based response as well as the humoral.

Considering the concerns likely to be raised by their findings, I think it is a serious omission not to compare the data to antibody levels typically seen following primary responses to infections on which we have solid information on long term immunity, (both weak and strong). However this would be a completely academic consideration provided a good secondary response to Covid 19 antigen / virus was seen.

On 2020-04-17 15:25:24, user Dr. James R. Baker wrote:

Interesting approach and pretty convincing, but it does not take into account the number of asymptomatic infections associated with COVID. That is really substantial; some estimates of 30-50 percent. That would then double your number, wouldn't it?

On 2019-11-12 00:51:39, user Guyguy wrote:

EVOLUTION OF THE EPIDEMIC IN THE PROVINCES OF NORTH KIVU AND ITURI AT NOVEMBER 10, 2019

Monday, November 11, 2019<br /> Since the beginning of the epidemic, the cumulative number of cases is 3,287, of which 3,169 confirmed and 118 probable. In total, there were 2,193 deaths (2075 confirmed and 118 probable) and 1067 people cured.<br /> 411 suspected cases under investigation;<br /> No new cases confirmed;<br /> No new deaths of confirmed cases have been recorded;<br /> 3 people healed from the CTE in North Kivu in Mabalako;<br /> No health workers are among the newly confirmed cases. The cumulative number of confirmed / probable cases among health workers is 161 (5% of all confirmed / probable cases), including 41 deaths;

NEWS

Awareness and vaccination day for Beni mototaxi drivers with the support of Unicef S / Coordination MVE Beni, Wednesday 06-11 - 2019 HIVUM room

• There were many, about three hundred, the drivers of Mototaxi Beni invited to a day of awareness and vaccination against Ebola Virus Disease this Wednesday, November 06, 2019 in the HIVUM room.

• This day is welcome for the city of Beni during this period of EVD epidemic which, unfortunately, displays a lethality of 86.3% among motorcyclists, as pointed out by Dr. Pierre ADIKEY, Coordinator of the response of Sub Coordination of Beni.

• Thus, in his presentation, he focused his message on the risk of transmission of EVD among motorotaxi drivers and the conduct to be held in the exercise of their craft to protect themselves and the community.

• He asked bikers more often to respect the measures of prevention, namely: washing hands regularly, stopping at checkpoints, not being bribed to divert checkpoints, not carrying suspicious parcels and reporting and / or direct any suspicions of illness to colleagues or the community.

• In order to circumscribe the day, Dr. P. ADIKEY traced the path of the last Motard who died of EVD before his death confirmed at the CTE. To close his presentation, he made a reminder of the various events that prevented the teams of the response from working: among other things the days of the dead city, the fire of the vehicles of the riposte, the destruction of the structures of the care, the cases of resistance and others whose bikers were part of it.

• Dr. Bibiche MATADY, as Epidemiologist and Chair of the Monitoring Commission, introduced to the participants the importance of accepting to be listened to if you are in contact with a case, to let yourself be followed for the entire period indicated and to orient in a management structure as soon as the first sign appears. She also emphasized the collaboration between the bikers and the teams of the response.

• To justify this day again, one of the 3 Hikers shared his testimony and urged his colleagues to collaborate and follow the recommendations of the response teams starting with vaccination.

• Vaccination is one of the preventive measures against EVD, said Dr Adonis TERANYA, the Chair of the Immunization Subcommission. In his presentation, he explained the evolution of the vaccination protocol, the current targets, the side effects and the action to take in the event of an adverse event. Before calling for the voluntary vaccination of participants, he spoke about vaccines currently used in the DRC.

• In his words, the President of Bikers reiterated to the Coordinator the commitment of his organization and all its members to support the interventions of the response, while affirming its availability to any solicitation for the fight against the disease to Ebola virus in the city of Beni and its surroundings.

• The day ended with the vaccination of 100 Bikers and some of their dependents.

VACCINATION

• Since vaccination began on 8 August 2018, 250,234 people have been vaccinated;
• The only vaccine to be used in this outbreak is the rVSV-ZEBOV vaccine, manufactured by the pharmaceutical group Merck, following approval by the Ethics Committee in its decision of 20 May 2018.

MONITORING AT ENTRY POINTS

• Since the beginning of the epidemic, the total number of travelers checked (temperature rise) at the sanitary control points is 115,778,240 ;
• To date, a total of 111 entry points (PoE) and sanitary control points (PoCs) have been set up in the provinces of North Kivu and Ituri to protect the country's major cities and prevent the spread of the epidemic in neighboring countries.

As a reminder, the recommendations of the MULTISECTORAL COMMITTEE OF THE RESPONSE TO EBOLA VIRUS DISEASE are as follows:

1. Follow basic hygiene practices, including regular hand washing with soap and water or ashes;
2. If an acquaintance from an epidemic area comes to visit you and is ill, do not touch her and call the North Kivu Civil Protection toll-free number;
3. If you are identified as a contact of an Ebola patient, agree to be vaccinated and followed for 21 days;
4. If a person dies because of Ebola, follow the instructions for safe and dignified burials. It is simply a funeral method that respects funerary customs and traditions while protecting the family and community from Ebola contamination.
5. For all health professionals, observe the hygiene measures in the health centers and declare any person with symptoms of Ebola (fever, diarrhea, vomiting, fatigue, anorexia, bleeding).<br /> If all citizens respect these health measures recommended by the Secretariat, it is possible to quickly end this 10th epidemic.

On 2019-11-15 16:53:09, user GuyguyKabundi Tshima wrote:

EVOLUTION OF THE EPIDEMIC IN THE PROVINCES OF NORTH KIVU AND ITURI AS AT NOVEMBER 13, 2019

Thursday, November 14, 2019

• Since the beginning of the epidemic, the cumulative number of cases is 3,292, of which 3,174 are confirmed and 118 are probable. In total, there were 2,193 deaths (2075 confirmed and 118 probable) and 1067 people cured.<br /> • 527 suspected cases under investigation;<br /> • 1 new case confirmed in North Kivu in Mabalako;<br /> • No new deaths of confirmed cases have been recorded;<br /> • No cured person has emerged from ETCs;<br /> • No health worker is among the new confirmed cases. The cumulative number of confirmed / probable cases among health workers is 163 (5% of all confirmed / probable cases), including 41 deaths;

NEWS

Ebola Virus Disease Response Co-ordination Announces Three Road Traffic Accident in Bunia, Ituri

• The overall coordination of the response to the Ebola Virus Disease epidemic in North, South Kivu and Ituri was informed on Thursday 13 November 2019 of the tragic traffic accident between two motorcycles, one of which carried three agents of the riposte;<br /> • These three officers, who work for the Epidemiological Surveillance Commission at the Point of Entry and Control, were returning from Bunia to Mambasa, where they are respectively delivering;<br /> • This accident occurred around Marabo in Bunia on the evening of Wednesday 13 November 2019;<br /> • The balance sheet reports an officer who died at the scene and two others who were seriously injured, including one in a coma. The two wounded were taken to the Nyakunde Reference General Hospital in Ituri for appropriate care;<br /> • The overall coordination of the response sends its deepest condolences to the grieving family and expresses all its compassion and solidarity to the injured officers, while wishing them a quick recovery.

Effective start of Johnson & Johnson vaccination in two Goma health areas

• Ebola vaccination with the Ad26.ZEBOV / MVA-BN-Filo vaccine, produced by Janssen Pharmaceuticals for Johnson & Johnson, began on Thursday, November 14, 2019 in two Karisimbi health areas in Goma City , North Kivu Province;<br /> • The Epidemic Response Coordinator for Ebola Virus Disease in North, South Kivu and Ituri. For this purpose, Prof. Steve Ahuka Mundeke visited the vaccination sites to inquire about the evolution of activities in the field. He was satisfied with the work of the teams;<br /> • He took the opportunity to invite the population of the targeted areas to be vaccinated in order to protect themselves from the resurgence of the Ebola virus;<br /> • Several people were present in Majengo and Kahembe health areas to get vaccinated. The first person to be vaccinated is a Kahembe community leader who has been protected against the Ebola virus today and also in case of a possible new Ebola outbreak. This community leader has appealed to all residents of his community and sites targeted to come take this second vaccine. "This is an opportunity not to be missed, because it is said that prevention is better than cure, " he said;<br /> • The logistics of this vaccination are provided by the international non-governmental organization Médecins Sans Frontières of France (MSF / France).<br /> • Approved October 22, 2019 by the Ethics Committee of the School of Public Health of the University of Kinshasa and October 23, 2019 by the National Ethics Committee, this second vaccine, called Ad26.ZEBOV / MVA-BN -Filo , is produced by Janssen Pharmaceuticals for Johnson & Johnson;<br /> • This new vaccine complements the first, the rVSV-ZEBOV, the vaccine used until then in this epidemic. Manufactured by the pharmaceutical group Merck, after approval of the Ethics Committee on May 20, 2018, it was recently approved.

Closing of the training workshop for media professionals in Beni on the role and responsibility of journalists during public health crises

• The Deputy Mayor of the city of Beni, Muhindo Bakwanamaha Modeste, closed this Thursday, November 14, 2019 in Beni in the province of North Kivu the training of media professionals on the role and responsibility during public health crises;<br /> • The coordinator of the Beni Ebola Ebola response sub-coordination, Dr. Pierre Adikey, on behalf of the Coordinator-General of the Response, Prof. Steve Ahuka, wished to see these kinds of trainings be organized, not only in other sub-Coordination of the response, but also throughout the Democratic Republic of the Congo so that journalists from all over the country are ready to face any possible epidemic crisis;<br /> • This training, he said, is part of the zero-case Ebola strategy and strengthening the health system of tomorrow;<br /> • The focal point of Beni's journalists, Moustapha MULONDA, reaffirmed the commitment of journalists to combat Ebola Virus Disease through various programs and publications disseminated and published by their respective media thanks to the new tools acquired during this period. training;<br /> • This training was organized by the Ministry of Health in collaboration with the World Health Organization and benefited from the facilitation of the overall coordination of the response, UNICEF, CDC Africa and MSF.

VACCINATION

• Since the start of vaccination on August 8, 2018 with the rVSV-ZEBOV vaccine, 251,637 people have been vaccinated;

• Vaccination with the second Ad26.ZEBOV / MVA-BN-Filo vaccine, produced by Janssen Pharmaceuticals for Johnson & Johnson, began on Thursday November 14, 2019 in Goma. This vaccine was approved on 22 October 2019 by the decisions of the Ethics Committee of the School of Public Health of the University of Kinshasa and 23 October 2019 of the National Ethics Committee;

• Until then, only one vaccine was used in this outbreak. This is the rVSV-ZEBOV vaccine, manufactured by the pharmaceutical group Merck, after approval of the Ethics Committee in its decision of 20 May 2018 and which has recently been approved.

MONITORING AT ENTRY POINTS

• A 27-year-old woman from Butembo for Goma, an escaped suspect from Makasi Hospital in Butembo, North Kivu, was intercepted at the Kanyabayonga checkpoint in Kayna. When she was intercepted, she experienced signs such as fever at 38.4 ° C, severe asthenia, abdominal pain and vaginal bleeding. It was sent to the KAYNA Transit Center.

• Since the beginning of the epidemic, the total number of travelers checked (temperature rise) at the sanitary control points is 116,622,388 ;

• To date, a total of 112 entry points (PoE) and sanitary control points (PoCs) have been set up in the provinces of North Kivu and Ituri to protect the country's major cities and prevent the spread of the epidemic in neighboring countries.

As a reminder, the recommendations of the MULTISECTORAL COMMITTEE OF THE RESPONSE TO EBOLA VIRUS DISEASE are as follows:

1. Follow basic hygiene practices, including regular hand washing with soap and water or ashes;
2. If an acquaintance from an epidemic area comes to visit you and is ill, do not touch her and call the North Kivu Civil Protection toll-free number;
3. If you are identified as a contact of an Ebola patient, agree to be vaccinated and followed for 21 days;
4. If a person dies because of Ebola, follow the instructions for safe and dignified burials. It is simply a funeral method that respects funerary customs and traditions while protecting the family and community from Ebola contamination.
5. For all health professionals, observe the hygiene measures in the health centers and declare any person with symptoms of # Ebola (fever, diarrhea, vomiting, fatigue, anorexia, bleeding).<br /> If all citizens respect these health measures recommended by the Secretariat, it is possible to quickly end this 10th epidemic.

On 2019-11-30 17:00:40, user Guyguy wrote:

EVOLUTION OF THE EPIDEMIC IN THE PROVINCES OF NORTH KIVU AND ITURI AT NOVEMBER 27, 2019

Thursday, November 28, 2019<br /> • Since the beginning of the epidemic, the cumulative number of cases is 3,309, of which 3,191 are confirmed and 118 are probable. In total, there were 2,201 deaths (2,083 confirmed and 118 probable) and 1077 people healed.<br /> • 443 suspected cases under investigation;<br /> • 5 new confirmed cases, including:<br /> o 4 in Ituri in Mandima;<br /> o 1 in North Kivu in Mabalako;<br /> • 2 new deaths of confirmed cases, including:<br /> o 2 new community deaths in Ituri in Mandima;<br /> o No deaths among confirmed cases in CTEs;<br /> • No cured person has emerged from CTEs;<br /> • No health worker is among the new confirmed cases. The cumulative number of confirmed / probable cases among health workers is 163 (5% of all confirmed / probable cases), including 41 deaths.

NEWS

Three members of the Ebola Virus Epidemic response killed during an attack in Biakato, Ituri

• Following the attack on the sub-coordination of the Biakato response in Ituri on the night of Wednesday 27th to Thursday 28 November 2019, three members of the Ebola response teams in this sector lost their lives ;<br /> • It is a provider and a driver of the vaccination committee and another driver;<br /> • In addition to these three deaths, there are 7 wounded and 6 others with psychological disorders and extensive material damage.<br /> • A good number of these teams from Biakato were evacuated in three waves to Goma. As soon as they arrived, they were greeted by a coordination team led by Prof. Steve Ahuka, general coordinator, who also visited the wounded before going to inquire about the security conditions and accommodation of evacuees. He did not fail to comfort them.

VACCINATION

• The vaccination commission is in mourning. A service provider and a driver of his team were killed on the night of Wednesday 27 November 2019 following attacks at the Biakato base in Ituri;<br /> • 2nd day without vaccination activity with the 2nd J & J vaccine following the disorders initiated by young people related to the security situation in Beni;<br /> • 724 people were vaccinated, until Tuesday, November 26, 2019, with the 2nd Ad26.ZEBOV / MVA-BN-Filo vaccine (Johnson & Johnson) in the two health zones of Karisimbi in Goma;<br /> • Since the start of vaccination on August 8, 2018 with the rVSV-ZEBOV vaccine, 255,373 people have been vaccinated;<br /> • Approved October 22, 2019 by the Ethics Committee of the School of Public Health of the University of Kinshasa and October 23, 2019 by the National Ethics Committee, the second vaccine, called Ad26.ZEBOV / MVA-BN -Filo, is produced by Janssen Pharmaceuticals for Johnson & Johnson;<br /> • This new vaccine is in addition to the first, the rVSV-ZEBOV, vaccine used until then (since August 08, 2018) in this epidemic manufactured by the pharmaceutical group Merck, after approval of the Ethics Committee on May 20, 2018. has recently been pre-qualified for registration.

MONITORING AT ENTRY POINTS

• Sanitary control activities are disrupted in the towns of Beni and Butembo in North Kivu province following demonstrations by the population which decries killings of civilians;<br /> • Since the beginning of the epidemic, the total number of travelers checked (temperature measurement ) at the sanitary control points is 121,159,810 ;<br /> • To date, a total of 109 entry points (PoE) and sanitary control points (PoCs) have been set up in the provinces of North Kivu and Ituri to protect the country's major cities and prevent the spread of the epidemic in neighboring countries.

As a reminder, the recommendations of the MULTISECTORAL COMMITTEE OF THE RESPONSE TO EBOLA VIRUS DISEASE are as follows:

1. Follow basic hygiene practices, including regular hand washing with soap and water or ashes;
2. If an acquaintance from an epidemic area comes to visit you and is ill, do not touch her and call the North Kivu Civil Protection toll-free number;
3. If you are identified as a contact of an Ebola patient, agree to be vaccinated and followed for 21 days;
4. If a person dies because of Ebola, follow the instructions for safe and dignified burials. It is simply a funeral method that respects funerary customs and traditions while protecting the family and community from Ebola contamination.
5. For all health professionals, observe the hygiene measures in the health centers and declare any person with symptoms of # Ebola (fever, diarrhea, vomiting, fatigue, anorexia, bleeding).<br /> If all citizens respect these health measures recommended by the Secretariat, it is possible to quickly end this 10th epidemic.

On 2021-10-10 03:44:51, user kdrl nakle wrote:

The results on T-cells is quite murky here, without much explanation. You really need a bigger sample to be able to see this better, your sample of 46 is too small.

On 2020-01-25 23:16:22, user White_Runner wrote:

There is another study that puts the R0 value in 1.4 to 2.6, still very high.<br /> However not apocaliptic levels like the one described here.<br /> Also, this R0 value can change in time as long as the adequate restrictions are taken in place.<br /> So, yeah guys, expect the best, have some precautions and happy lunar new year.

On 2020-02-12 18:53:53, user S.T wrote:

Table 2 has a typo(I presume). It states the time window is from 25th December 2010**

On 2020-03-22 15:56:46, user Sinai Immunol Review Project wrote:

Main findings<br /> The authors characterized the immune response in peripheral blood of a 47-year old COVID-19 patient. <br /> SARS-CoV2 was detected in nasopharyngeal swab, sputum and faeces samples, but not in urine, rectal swab, whole blood or throat swab. 7 days after symptom onset, the nasopharyngeal swab test turned negative, at day 10 the radiography infiltrates were cleared and at day 13 the patient became asymptomatic.

Immunofluorescence staining shows from day 7 the presence of COVID-19-binding IgG and IgM antibodies in plasma, that increase until day 20. <br /> Flow cytometry on whole blood reveals a plasmablast peak at day 8, a gradual increase in T follicular helper cells, stable HLA-DR+ NK frequencies and decreased monocyte frequencies compared to healthy counterparts. The expression of CD38 and HLA-DR peaked on T cells at D9 and was associated with higher production of cytotoxic mediators by CD8+ T cells.<br /> IL-6 and IL-8 were undetectable in plasma.<br /> The authors further highlight the presence of the IFITM3 SNP-rs12252-C/C variant in this patient, which is associated with higher susceptibility to influenza virus.

Limitations of the study<br /> These results need to be confirmed in additional patients.<br /> COVID-19 patients have increased infiltration of macrophages in their lungs{1}. Monitoring monocyte proportions in blood earlier in the disease might help to evaluate their eventual migration to the lungs.<br /> The stable concentration of HLA-DR+ NK cells in blood from day 7 is not sufficient to rule out NK cell activation upon SARS-CoV2 infection. In response to influenza A virus, NK cells express higher levels of activation markers CD69 and CD38, proliferate better and display higher cytotoxicity{2}. Assessing these parameters in COVID-19 patients is required to better understand NK cell role in clearing this infection. <br /> Neutralization potential of the COVID-19-binding IgG and IgM antibodies should be assessed in future studies.<br /> This patient was able to clear the virus, while presenting a SNP associated with severe outcome following influenza infection. The association between this SNP and outcome<br /> upon SARS-CoV2 infection should be further investigated.

Relevance<br /> This study is among the first to describe the appearance of COVID-19-binding IgG and IgM antibodies upon infection. The emergence of new serological assays might contribute to monitor more precisely the seroconversion kinetics of COVID-19 patients{3}. Further association studies between IFITM3 SNP-rs12252-C/C variant and clinical data might help to refine the COVID-19 outcome prediction tools.

References<br /> 1. Liao, M. et al. The landscape of lung bronchoalveolar immune cells in COVID-19 revealed by single-cell RNA sequencing. http://medrxiv.org/lookup/d... (2020) doi:10.1101/2020.02.23.20026690.<br /> 2. Scharenberg, M. et al. Influenza A Virus Infection Induces Hyperresponsiveness in Human Lung Tissue-Resident and Peripheral Blood NK Cells. Front. Immunol. 10, 1116 (2019).<br /> 3. Amanat, F. et al. A serological assay to detect SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion in humans. http://medrxiv.org/lookup/d... (2020) doi:10.1101/2020.03.17.20037713.

Review by Bérengère Salomé as part of a project by students, postdocs and faculty at the Immunology Institute of the Icahn school of medicine, Mount Sinai

On 2021-10-29 15:37:00, user Rogerblack wrote:

I find refreshing the repeated ''these associations did not survive correction for multiple comparisons'.<br /> An interesting paper.

On 2020-10-22 21:07:13, user Lee Jimmy wrote:

How does this relate to the nursing home outbreak in the La Crosse area ?<br /> James T. Lee, MD PhD FACS FIDSA FSHEA

On 2020-05-20 16:50:49, user Peter Ellis wrote:

Table 1 presents the data, showing 40 positive tests and 689 negative tests, i.e. an average prevalence of 5.49% across the course of the study. Elsewhere in the manuscript, the sensitivity is given as 100% (meaning none were missed) and the specificity as 98.3% (meaning there is a 1.7% false positive rate.

This being the case, can the authors please explain:

1) Why the caption for Table 1 reports 789 patients given that 40 + 689 = 729?

2) How they adjusted for false positives. 40 / 729 = 5.49%, which minus the 1.7% false positive rate leaves around 3.79% positive across the course of the whole study.<br /> [A Bayesian adjustment would be more accurate, this will suffice for now]

3) Given that the true positive rate in the samples they measured is around 3.79% across the whole study, how do they calculate a population prevalence of 4.6% at the start, rising to 7.1% at the end of the study. The methodology for this is entirely lacking.

On 2020-04-22 02:20:27, user Mike wrote:

This was certainly an interesting paper. It's done a lot of work and the findings are notable. IMHO it warrants as much attention as the pro-HCQ study via Dr. Raoult. While it is entertaining, I will add that it is not conclusive, nor without fault. A double-blind study is still required, but it is worth the read.

Observations/Questions:

1. "hydroxychloroquine, with or without azithromycin, was more likely to be prescribed to patients with more severe disease”<br /> 2. "we cannot rule out the possibility of selection bias or residual confounding”<br /> 3. demographic: 100% male, 66% black, median age ~70 (59 youngest)<br /> 4. uses PSM, which despite a common practice, could be considered controversial (https://gking.harvard.edu/f... "https://gking.harvard.edu/files/gking/files/psnot.pdf)")<br /> 5. Unless I missed it, I didn't see any specifics about how the treatments were administered.<br /> - How long before death were patients treated? <br /> - What was the quantity/frequency of the treatments? <br /> - Were the treatments consistent between hospitals?<br /> 6. The rate of ventilation was less in HC+AZ (half of the HC and no-HC rates). Why was that and what does that suggest?<br /> 7. Although they were statistically insignificant, what was the result of the 17 women not included in the study?<br /> 8. Why does the paper seem to address political points? It seems like the Abstract is editorialized, which I'm not accustomed to. The Conclusions portion (and page after) seeming to address topical issues of the times. Perhaps this introduces my own subjective bias, but I infer potential for analysis/deciphering bias when the study shows awareness of other controversial studies being conducted, rather than being a standalone independent study of its own; essentially, it leaves me to question motivations of the author, rather than that motivation being scientific discovery. I don't mind such commentary in the Discussion section, I'm just not as accustomed to seeing it in the Abstract.

On 2022-10-28 07:00:48, user Sujoy Ghosh wrote:

This manuscript has now been published as follows: <br /> Ghosh, S., Roy, S.S. Global-scale modeling of early factors and <br /> country-specific trajectories of COVID-19 incidence: a cross-sectional <br /> study of the first 6 months of the pandemic.<br /> BMC Public Health 22, 1919 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12...

Kindly update the link in medrxiv. Regards, Sujoy Ghosh

On 2022-11-07 06:03:04, user Daniel Corcos wrote:

I don't see any adjustment for the date of infection. There is a high probability that nirmatrelvir treatment was used on average at a different time, against infections with a different ratio of viral variants.

On 2022-12-01 05:07:56, user Amir Hossein Nikzad wrote:

Hi medRxiv, this pre-print is published on Schizophrenia in July 2022. Here are the link: https://www.nature.com/arti... and the doi https://doi.org/10.1038/s41.... Regards, Amir.

On 2022-12-12 06:18:02, user Stephanie Byrne wrote:

This article has been accepted for publication in the International Journal of Epidemiology, published by Oxford University Press. A DOI and link to the published article will be available soon.

On 2022-12-29 19:11:31, user tshann wrote:

Given the stated benefits of these vaccines, why are we doing modeling studies rather than real RCT's. It's been over 2 years with these products, when will we see the science instead of more modeling studies?

On 2023-01-23 00:20:10, user Stephen Akar wrote:

I think this is a fantastic work by this great team. I am working on YF in Nigeria.

On 2023-01-23 11:55:19, user Yang Wen wrote:

This manuscript has been reviewed and published on Frontiers in Psychiatry.

Please cite the latest version of this manuscript via https://doi.org/10.3389/fps....

On 2023-03-10 18:13:37, user Kirsten Wiens wrote:

This manuscript has now been published online at Lancet Microbe: https://doi.org/10.1016/S26...

On 2023-03-29 14:07:37, user YUE BAI wrote:

Hi,

Could you please link the preprint to the published article (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org...? "https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9670745)?") Thank you!

On 2023-04-16 07:02:33, user Basheer wrote:

The paper is published at https://www.eurekaselect.co...

On 2023-09-06 12:08:36, user Hema Chaplin wrote:

This article has been accepted for publication in PLOS One (Open Access) on August 9 2023 and can be found here https://doi.org/10.1371/jou...

On 2023-10-22 13:47:09, user Rahma Menshawey wrote:

This research has now been peer reviewed and published here: <br /> https://bnrc.springeropen.c...

On 2023-11-21 02:18:06, user Marco Confalonieri wrote:

The finding that high glucose levels can predict glucorticoids (GCs) benefit surprised most of us. All we who performed the included RCTs thincked to hyperglycemia as an adverse effect of GCs, not paying attention to glucose blood level at admission. Nevertheless, there are several reports pointing out hyperglycemia but not diabetes alone associated with increased in-hospital mortality in community-acquired pneumonia (BMJ Open Diab Res Care 2022;10:e002880). It should be noted that AI doesn't have the same prejudices than human researchers.