massimaux | 11 points
Great news from Peru! Ivermectin distribution continues until the end of 2020, and the daily death return to normal numbers. Does the rest of the world follow? (PERU 2020-10-13) Tweet by Juan Chamie: https://twitter.com/jjchamie/status/1315878998065504257[-] fyodor32768 | 2 points
Other than San Marino, which is tiny, Peru has lost more people per capita than any country in the world, which is all the worse given that Peru is a fairly young country (average age 27.5) and there are credible allegations of undercounting. Is there any reason to think that this isn't just some combination of regular suppression and/or high serpositivity?
[-] fyodor32768 | 1 points
Just to give you context, Peru has about 1/3 as many people per capita over 65 as the US. For them to have lost 1/1000 population probably means NYC levels of seropositivity.
From the total deaths graph one can see that the excess death has almost reached zero compared to pre-COVID numbers.
Now, if that means herd immunity, whatever the seropositivity rate is, then Peru is done. If the pandemic in Peru is over, then the country would finish the crisis with 0.1% mortality rate which is equivalent to a CFR of the seasonal flu if hypothetically the whole population has been infected.
The death toll is huge for Peru, but if they are fast approaching the end, then the death toll would be like an extremely bad flu season.
[-] fyodor32768 | 1 points
Excess deaths are a very general way to see if there is significant underccounting or deaths being missed. Given all the changes in behavior (less travel, activities, exposure to other diseases) and all the other ways deaths vary year to year, it's not a precise measure. Peru is still reporting 60-80 deaths a day, equivalent to about 600-800 in the US.
It's not "over" in Peru any more than it was over in Western Europe or Arizona or any other place that had significant spread that they got under control for some period of time. All we know is that Peru probably got hit worse than any other non-tiny country and they have been able through some combination of extremely aggressive suppression measures and seropositivity to reduce their cases for a few months. Schools remain closed, movie theaters are closed, gatherings are restricted, a curfew remains in effect,
Look at the graphs for these 8 states in Peru. If they had aggressive suppression measures during the months June-August, why were registered cases for 60+ people not falling? Several conclusions are drawn from the graphs:
Correlation does not imply causality, right? Well, sometimes it does. Is this case such?
I'm not sure I understand. Are you suggesting that the covid-19 death rate is falling because a sort of herd immunity has been achieved?
[-] fyodor32768 | 2 points
A combination of aggressive mitigation measures, aided by seropositivity, as you've seen all over the place. So normally, you've reduced transmission enough to say get R to 1, but 20 percent is immune. So twenty percent of transmissions are fought off, producing an R of 0.8 and quickly reduced cases over multiple 6 day transmission cycles. But if they were to relax their mitigation numbers to anything resembling normal, the twenty percent wouldn't be enough to reduce spread.
Here is what the author of this graph and this analysis commented on Trial Site News:
JUAN J CHAMIE ON OCTOBER 6, 2020 AT 11:05 PM
Sweden, New York City, Orange County, or California controlled the virus, reducing cases. It didn’t happen in Peru. The number of new cases and the test positivity remained constant (above 20%).
Loreto is a good example. They controlled the deaths in May (with ivermectin). In July, a seroprevalence study shown a 71% infection rate. And still, the test positivity in October is above 30%
The reduction happened eight times in different provinces, both in excess mortality and case fatality rate. In addition case counts in some provinces increased, but lethality decreased. Herd immunity doesn't explain that.
They were looking only at 60+ years population, so there goes explanation about only young people getting infected.
The reduced mortality happened systematically after ivermectin interventions, at different times of year in different provinces.
I'm finding it likely the explanation is ivermectin works.
[-] Alexanderandjeff | 1 points
No...Ivermectin is being found and effective viruside .As potent as what Penicillin was and is killing bacteria....Not one report anywhere of any serious side affects when using Ivermectin in the normal ranges..So safe that it can be taken many times higher and completely safe...Even when used without Doxycycline and Zinc it stops virus replication early on...Best time to use before the inflammatory phase starts.. Check out Adam Gaertner on Youtube with drbeen and Dr. Borody from Australia with his Tripack protocol...Dr. Borody is world famous ...Dr. Zelenko who got notoriety for Hydrocloroquine and Zinc has added that into his protocol I believe as well as a very strong prophylactic. .
[-] strongerthrulife | 1 points
I love how people try to make good news into bad news instantly
Christ sake people Ivermectin works... LETS GO
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
I like and respect @jjchamie. I think the epidemiological arguments he makes are often weak, though.
In this case, from mid-May until today, it looks like about 6 million doses of ivermectin were distributed (just adding up the numbers in the bar graph). There are 32 million people in Peru, so less than a 5th received the drug. Even if ivermectin is wonderfully effective, how big an impact could it have on the population as a whole?
On the other hand, the timing of the big bump in doses in the last week of July and a smaller bump in the first week of August do seem to coincide with a decline in deaths.
However, I would expect the impact of those big dosings to be temporary; they would reduce infections and (with a 5-6 week delay) deaths. After that, beginning around the first week of September, the death rate should decline less, if the decline is due to ivermectin -- but it doesn't. From the second week of August through the 3rd week of September, only about half-a-million doses were given out. The death rate plummeted during that period. I can't see how that can be accredited to ivermectin.
This pattern of a peak and decline is common. I want to believe that ivermectin helped, but it's not the whole story by any means. IMO.
There are 32 million people in Peru, so less than a 5th received the drug. Even if ivermectin is wonderfully effective, how big an impact could it have on the population as a whole?
If the doses were mainly given to elderly then the impact could be sizeable.
However, I would expect the impact of those big dosings to be temporary; they would reduce infections and (with a 5-6 week delay) deaths.
Maybe, but we don't know enough about the duration of Ivermectin effects when taken as prophylaxis. We don't even know the average dose taken per person.
Also, is it possible that when taken as early treatment, it helps the immune system clear the virus and create antibodies to prevent from future infection?
What puzzles me though is the CFR. In his analysis for the 8 Peru states, only the 60+ people are considered. The data shows that the case fatality rate (CFR) is going down after the respective IVM distribution date. From as high as 40-60%, it reduces to 3-10%. CFR should have been pretty much constant for the 60+ age group. Why would it fall so much?
[-] massimaux | 5 points | Oct 14 2020 13:03:32
Donald Trump dream just happened in Peru
The virus disappeared like magic
Daily excess deaths from 700 to 0 in a month.
BTW the magic powder was Ivermectin
https://twitter.com/jjchamie/status/1316115543058001920
permalink