ubiquitin

but how did you write-
“It DID however show a reduction in Group C these people DID NOT get hospitalized, again these are people who without HCQ would have lived anyway.”

Sure, happy to explain.
First 2 facts:
1. Dr Zelenkos study showed a decrease in hospitalization s among those who get the triple therapy compared to those who did not
2. Dr Zelenkos study did not show a decrease in death among those who get the triple therapy compared to this who did not.
Ok…

Now normally all those who died from covid were in the hospital first. Patients who die typically
I get sick -> ii go to the hospital -> iii die. So the question was asked if those who go to the hospital (ii) decrease with the tripe therapy, doesnt it follow that those who die (iii) decrease as well? Are those in grioup iii skipping the hospital and dieing at home?

So I explained it is quite possible that the combination is helping those who go to the hospital and end up getting hetter (without hcq) e it is not having an effect on those who died without hcq, (iii) they are all still dying
This is a possibility as to hoe a medication can help hospitalization but not death (which is what the study showed)
Now as made clear this is a possibility I’m not saying this is what happened. Its possible that the medication DOES help mortality but the study didn’t have enough power to show it

ready

““imaginary study”-see your top answer on page 2”

no, you see the answer please. The only study mentioned t here is Dr. Zelenko’s.
That post describes how it is possible for fewer people to be hospitilized but the same number of people die.
If the above question doesnt nother you skip it, it doesnt convey any new information.
If you want the question or answer explained I’d be happy to explain either, or both. Please let me know .

“No, but SOME may die, has v sholom.
Not : “they would have lived anyway”
We do not know”

you said that already. The equivalent of “SOME may die” is that most will live. Those are logical equivelents.
If I say Some cows are brown. That means other cows are not brown. right?

So if “some may die” then that means others “would have lived” even without HCQ.
correct?

““imginary” or “theorethical”, either word wiil do.”

Again I’m not sure what “study” you are referring to. I was outlining a Psossible (theoretical/imaginary?) explanation as to how a drug can lower hospitalizations but not mortality.

“No, but SOME may died, has v sholom.”
Excellent!
Lets keep going. “some may died” means most would have lived. Right?
Ie even without HCQ most patients live.
with me?
So when most patients with HCQ live, how do we know that it is due to HCQ, when, again, even WITHOUT HCQ most patients live.
As you correctly conclude. did the HCQ help?
“We do not know.”

So how can we we show that the people got HCQ benefited FROM the HCQ ? and dint just live because even most who do not get HCQ live?

ready

“We cannot know.”

I realize my last response was unclear.

Lets say I tried to show you candy cures cancer. I take 100 cancer patients give them all candy and , i don’t know 90 of them are alive a year later.

Pretty impressive right?

Well it depends. what would have happened to those patients if they DID NOT get candy?
How could we know you might ask?
Well we take similar patients DO NOT give them candy and see how they do. If 90 of them are alive a year later WITHOUT candy. Then it wasnt the candy that helped them.

Make sense?

furthermore, that response was addressing a side question namely How could you have ““Less hospitalizations, but similar mortality level?”
I was outlining a POSSIBLE explanation of how a medication can lead to less hospitlizations, but not have an effect on mortality. NOT that that IS What HCQ is doing. We dont know from the study maybe it is decreasing mortality, maybe it is causing more people to die at home (so less hospitalizations but same mortality)

Ready

“Your A B C D study on top of page 2 ”

Please (re?)read it, the only study mentioned there is Dr Zelenkos’s

ready
I reread your comment and realized it sounds like you don’t know how studies are designed or interpreted.

Here is a quick crash course.

Say you want to investigate something like does candy cure cancer or does HCQ+zinc cure (or prevent) Covid19. You take two SIMILAR groups give one the treatment you are investigating (candy or HCQ) and the other standard care (this one is the control group) and you see if there is a difference in outcome between the two.
Ideally you randomize who gets what and blind the pateint and person looking for outcome, but this isnt always possible, and that is fine.

With me so far?

now you start with a null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is the default position, ie that there is no difference that candy doesnt cure cancer or that HCQ doesnt treat or prevent Covid 19.

If you find a statistically significant difference between the two groups (ie more candy recipients survived or more HCQ recipients survived or for that matter, fewer were hospitalized) You REJECT the null hypothesis, ie you reject the premise that there is no difference and accept the alternative Hypothesis that Candy DOES cure cancer or that HCQ DOES treat/prevent covid19.

Still with me?
Now how do we define what is statistically significant? Obviously it is THEORETICALLY possible that in any 2 groups of cancer patients one will do better than the other, or in any 2 groups of Covid19 patients one group will randomly do better than the other (even if they ARE similar groups) .?

So to estimate the odds that chance alone led to the difference between the two groups we calculate a p value. The p value is the probability that chance alone led to the perceived difference. A p value of < 0.05 is viewed as significant. This means that there is only a 5% chance that the perceived difference was due to chance and not due to the experimental entity. (candy or HCQ). If the p value is less than 0.05 we reject the null hypothesis (that candy doesn’t cure cancer, that HCQ doesnt cure/prevent covid19) and accept the alternative hypothesis (that it does)

Ok. got it?

Now to Dr. Zelenko’s study

the null hypothesis is that HCQ does not prevent hospitlizations, nor reduce mortality. Ie if you took two similar groups gave one HCQ and the other you dint , the two groups would have similar outcomes vis a vis death and hospitlizations.

what was the outcome?
With regard to hospitalizations they found fewer hospitilizations in the HCQ groups. Was this statisctly significant? the P value was <0.001 so yes! We reject the null hypothesis (that HCQ does not lower hospitalizations) and accept the alternative hypothesi ) HCQ DOES lower hospitalizations. *

With regard to mortality they found fewer deaths in the HCQ groups. Was this statistically significant? the P value was 0.16 so NO, Therefore We cannot reject the null hypothesis (that HCQ does not lower mortality) . (To be clear the study did NOT show that HCQ DOES NOT lower mortality, it just did NOT show that it DOES). Any attempted explanation as to WHY they didnt achieve statistical significance is mumbo jumbo trying to make their insignificant finding more meaningful.

As explained before the fact that we dont know anything about the control group doesnt make the study BETTER, the opposite it raises serious questions about their Significant finding (regarding hospitalizations)

Hope this helps

*Of course if the two groups are dissimilar for another reason aside from the presence or absence of HCQ then the difference may not be due to HCQ but due to the other differences eg younger healthier etc As I explained above )

Old crown heights

Regarding zinc

You are partially right, as the two treatments hcq+zn vs just hcq shkukd not be bundled together. I think most dont give much importance to zinc as most Americans are not zinc defficent, so its hard to imagine giving zinc makes much difference. That said hard to imagine doesn’t equal impossible. And it should be studied.

“That is the only thing, no comparison”
Absolutely , that’s why I only brought it up when asked too. My experience with hcq and zinc was not great pretty much everyone I saw had been on them and sadly died. That said that doesn’t mean it doesn’t work, I get called for the sickest people. That’s why studies are needed. For months Dr Zelenko was running around talks how to talk show peddling his treatment. I was skeptical but hopeful. I’m very disappointed that after months it turns out he doesn’t have data to back up his claims

The bottom line is its a pity this became politicized. From both sides the media played up the dangers while supporters played them down (it has a slight risk, not no risk and calling it deadly is exaggerating) similarly supporters played up the benefit

By1212

“Dr. Zelenkos study showed a reduction in death rate from 10% to 0.07 % in high risk patients.”

No it didn’t. See quote from study below.

“Every study ubiq quotes is fraudulent”
The only study I quoted in this thread. was Dr zelenkos’s. Here is the quote again ““The lower rate of all-cause- mortality in the treated group was not statistically significant” (this is a verbatim quote from his study)

Now while the study is certainly flawed, I dont know that I’d call it fraudulent

Old Crown heights

“Was this woman (may she have a lichtige gan eden) fit as an athlete, averagely healthy, averagely unhealthy or (previously) sickly?”

I like those descriptors, probably “averagely unhealthy” She had asthma but it was “intermittednt” menaing without any regular treatment she did not have regular exacerbations (though did have inhaler at home “in case” _ .

” How long after diagnosis did she start HCQ-Zinc+ treatment?”

At the time or prior to diagnossi. She was started in the Er when she presented with mild SOB being ppregnan tshe was nervous her OB sent her in as she was sattig in low 90’s

” Was she careful when she went out or cavalier?”
I’m not sure, though Im not sure how that would chaneg the course of disease. IF you get it you get it, of course its best not to get it, ie to not be cavalier. But if a person got it, im not sure that it matters if the y got it at a “corona party” or that one time she got to close to te uber eats delivery person

Where on the expected spectrum was her outcome? From probable to didn’t see that coming.”

didnt see that coming. She was young (34) young people werent supposed to die from corona. Though by the time i go called to see her she was quite sick

“HCQ+zinc aside, I’m interested in your medical opinion about the extent the feelings people have about covid (especially for those under 80 and generally healthy and even unhealthy) are being engineered by the media. …”

I’m not sure, I often wonder the same. There was a shift that took place. In March and earl April I was MORE afraid than Covid than the media let on. The media played up vent shortages but In the end there was enough vents , There was not enough staff, and other supplies dwindled. dialysis was a big problem .
Orginaly the “social distancing” was to prevent overwhelming the hospital system. In NYC in several hospitals I had privelges in the hospitals came close to breaking. In some ways they did.

since then B”h , at least here in NY things got better. At this point I’m not so sure what the point of the social distancing is. Corona is never going away. In 100 years it will STILL be around. Are we distancing until there is a vaccine? What if they dont develop one? The media focuses a lot on the number of cases. I’m not so sure why that matters. (incidently those who want to downplay corona also get excited by the number of cases because that makes the fatality rate less) I’m not sure why number of cases maters. to me it seems deaths, even hospitlizations matter if 150 kids in a Georgia camp get it and are fine, what exatly i s the issue? I dont really get it

“But YOU cannot extrapolate for what did not actually yet happen in the study”

Of course not.
The study did not show an improvement on mortality.
It did show an improvement in hospitalization (which would be great too)
The question asked was how can there be fewer hospitalizations but the same number if deaths?
I explained how this us possible. Not that that is what happened.
It is of vourse possible that there WERE deaths, bjt the study couldn’t show it

Ready
“How do you know they would have lived? That is simply an assumption.”

Because Dr Zelenkos study did not show an improvement in mortality, only in hospitalizations.

“It is Hashem who decides not a tablet after all, ”

So fartig. Forget hcq

2scents

“Less hospitalizations, but similar mortality level?
Are these people dying at home, or do they have a greater mortality rate once hospitalized?”

There are many drugs that have this affect (I cant think of any off hand)
It cna mean a lot of things
For example lets say with out HCQ there are different groups
Group A – Have coronoa don’t even know it
Group B- Have mild symptoms, or not severe enough to warrant hospitalization
Group C – Get very sick go to hospital and do better
Group D – Get very sick go to the hospital and sadly die.

For illustrative purpses lets say 50% of the population is in group A, 30% in group B 10% in Group C and 10% in group D. (I’m making these number up this isnt based on real data)

Obviously The ultimate goal is to get as many people out of Group D as possible.
Dr. Zelnko’s study sadly did not show any statistically significant reduction in those in group D.
It DID however show a reduction in Group C these people did not get hospitalized, again these are people who without HCQ would have lived anyway.
So for example you could now have 50% in Group A 35% in Group B 5% in Group C and 10% in group D.
Those who died are the same with or without HCQ (10 % in each scenario) but those who were hospitalized (Group C+D) before HCQ was 20% after was 15%
Now this is by no means Nothing. Many of those who survived had brutal hospitalizations with months of recovery . Reduction in Hospitalizations is not nothing.
BUT it isnt reduction in mortality

“Well he gave the same Drugs for Covid19, just in the Outpatient Setting!”

yep he sure did.

Ready

a few things
first Read what you quoted: HOSPITALIZATIONS were significantly less. Unfortunately DEATHS were NOT
quote from the study: “was associated with significantly less hospitalizations and 5 times less all-cause deaths.”

Note the change, while they WERE able to show that hospitalizations were significantly less (odds ratio 0.16, 95% CI 0.06-0.5). they WERE NOT able to show statistical significance (odds ratio 0.2, 95% CI 0.03-1.5; p=0.16)

This is important. Say you have 1000 Covid patients divide them in two groups group A and Group B. You dont do anything different to the groups. You’d expect similar outcomes in both right? Is it IMPOSSIBLE that in 1 group all 500 live and the other group half die? of course not. It is very very unlikely but not impossible. Would you dream in that unlikely scenario that merely label a covid pt as “Group A” would lead o a better outcome? Of course not. you would correctly conclude that this was a fluke (assuming the 2 groups were in fact similar) .
with me so far?
So with any study. If the POSSIBILTY of “flukes” exist, how do you know that Group A who got the treatment did better in a statistically significant way? maybe it was a fluke?
S othats where P values come in. A p value calculates the odds that the findings are due to chance alone. A P value of < 0.05 is taken to be “statisticly significant”.
so with regard to hospitalizations the treated group had less hospitalizations thatn the untreated group. The p value was <0.001 this means that there is a less than 0.1% chance that thsi was due to chance alone. It is statistically significant (Though we will next have to examine if in fact it is just the HCQ that differentiates the groups).

However., with regard to DEATH. The P value was 0.16. this is greater than 0.05 that means the study does NOT show that anything other than chance alone casues any difference between the 2 groups.

Or to quote the studies discussion “Treatment with the triple therapy resulted in a numerically lower
rate of all-cause deaths. In the absence of clinical details about the untreated patient
group, THE LOWER RATE OF ALL-CAUSE- MORTALITY IN THE TREATED GROUP WAS NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT” (emphasis added, I mean caps for emphasis not yelling)

Let me know if you are with me so far
I want to keep this in manageable chunks. The next step would be to look at the 2 groups, but first its important to understand the conclusion, the study did NOT show reduction in death among the treated group.

Health

“So the guy has a GREAT Question!”

which guy?

The question was about Dr. Zelenko, what does the NYU study have to do with him?

“Why haven’t askonim come to bat for Dr. Zelenko. He clearly had positive results.”

He didnt, as I elaborated in the lengthy thread on this topic.
Breifly:
His population was younger than average ( no one was over 70)
his population was healthier than average (for example none had COPD)

And finally it did not show a statistically significant benefit in mortality for the group who got HCQ ( although they were younger/healthier than those who didn’t)

see here https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/hydroxychloroquine/page/8

Avi

what exactly is your contention?”

That the OP’s statement that “The reason why stealing is bad is because by stealing you are going against the will of Hashem. Not for any other perceived moral reason. ”
Is not so cut and dry

to that end I pointed out several questions. One of them is from The Gemara that even without being commanded we would know not to steal. (sure hilchos geneiva would not look exactly as it does today, but that is completely irrelevant. Though upon further reflection this is the weakest question of the ones Ive posed. Because it would still be wrong becasue it went against the will of Hashem.. Hashem created our moral compass and yes even without being commanded we would know not to stel, but not because of som moraility that exists independent of the borei olam, rather becasue of the sense of morailty that the Borei olam created in us. )

“Are you saying that even without the Torah there would be a law against stealing?”
not a law per se, but that man would know it was wrong (this isnt my contention this is an explicit Gemara)

“The question is how stealing would be defined”
Thats your question, it has no bearing on my point

Avi
I’m not sure what you are saying.

The OP said all morals are learnt from the Torah, without the Torah we woudn’t have morality (im paraphrasing “There is no action in the world that is inherently good or bad,”

I pointed out that from Rashi (though it is really a Gemara yoma 67, I ve learnt the Rashi more often so I think of it as Rashi) it seems * not like this From Rashi we see that even without the Torah we still would have an innate knowledge of right/wrong and would know stealing is wrong. (I expressed it as a question on the OP)
Thus the OP’s conviction that the ONLY WAY we know stealing is wrong is because the Torah tells us (paraphrasing that isnt exactly what the OP said) isnt true.

I’m not sure what you are saying ” but that does not mean that there would be a law” Of course not. Though I dont see how that relates to this thread

Avi

” Rashi does not say that we would not know that stealing is wrong. Quite the contrary, people would prohibit it”

Yes. that is what I said

DMB

“The basic idea of what I’m trying to say is, that to believe in morals coming before religion is to believe that there is a power which comes before God which is not something that Judaism believes in.”

Aside from several pesukim and mamrei chazal that indicate that this isn’t quite so. There are also a few logical problems with this

1. It is a bit funny assert that ultimately all mitzvos are purely random, and arbitrary. There could have just as easily been a mitzvah to steal, and an averia to give tzedaka
granted not an impossible assertion but clearly one that doesn’t fit very well with most classical Jewish thought

2. You approach removes all impetus to serve/obey Hashem other than fear of punishment. to serve out of say Ahava, and recognizing all that Hashem does for you… Well who says Hakaros Hatov is a good thing?
It creates a bit of a circular reasoning,
Again not impossible to assert that ultimately the ONLY reason to listen is “well if you don’t your in big trouble… ” but I don’t think that fits with most classical Jewish thought.

Again there are questions on the other tzad as well.
I’m just offering food for thought

DMB

its in “To Heal A Fractured World: The Ethics of Responsibility”
excerpts are available online.

It might not be exactly as I say it . My point is the 2 are inseparable There is no god independent of morality nor is there morality independent of God

“I know people who are niftar.”

We all do.

That is no reason to throw reason out the window

“while knowing it minimizes spread,”

Do you have evidence that they knew that asymptomatic people can spread it?

In America we have this profession known as physicans some call them doctors. If you need medicine (or think you do) you go to them and tell them whats wrong. They may examine you and or do some tests and then prescribe (order) a medication that might help you.
Does Israel not have such a system in place?

“The front of Mr. Floyds neck was not pressed on the ground. The side was.”
correct, as I pointed out.

“Hence the question, can pressing the side of the neck constrict the airway, even if the trachea itself isnt being pushed against anything.”
1 Yes easily.
2. The trachea is in the neck if the neck is constricted the trachea is. Keep in mind even if a person’s rachea isnt completely constricted he can still asphyxiate if he is not getting enough air (aside from the issue of the carotid arteries being compressed as well)