charlestonsouthern wrote:

BCSnob -- You are good (really, no kidding) at sourcing information; so (if you are not too busy) I would ask you if you didn't mind trying to source the following quoted conclusion written by an RV.net member. The inference was as a scientific conclusion. If it becomes too time consuming, don't worry about it; I'll have my physician, Dr. David Leventhal, check it out (he likes doing these things) when I go for my regular check up on Friday. Here it is as follows:

"Within fractions of a percent, you are just as likely to become infected in Michigan or Vermont as you are in Florida or Arizona or California. There is scant evidence that locking yourself in your home with minimal contact with the outside world is significantly safer than engaging in activities while taking reasonable precautions. I am not aware of any studies that have shown Essential Retail employees (grocery store, hardware store, Walmart, etc.) or truckers, or delivery drivers or many other people who have daily, yet limited in duration, contact with the public suffer infection rates higher than the general population. . . . ."

Quote:

These results, which we were able to partially validate using seroprevalence data from individuals older than 18 years of age, suggest that the high rates of reported COVID-19 in older adults are most likely due to increased testing due to increased disease severity (21); in fact, older adults may be at less risk of infection than younger individuals, possibly due to greater adherence with social distancing, masking and other protective behaviors (22). By contrast, adults aged 20-29 are at markedly higher risk of infection after adjustment for decreased testing frequency; this again likely reflects risk perceptions and lack of adherence to preventive measures (22), while adolescents and teens had test-adjusted estimates of risk similar to those in the population as a whole.

The finding that children 10 and older are infected at rates similar to the population as a whole, after adjustment for testing frequency, is consistent with expectations for a pandemic disease, in which high attack rates reflect initial universal susceptibility to disease.

Source: COVID-19 Case-Age Distribution: Correction for Differential Testing by Age

Quote:

This analysis is for rates of infection not severity of the infection.

MEXICOWANDERER wrote:

Suseptibility is heavily influenced by social habits. Parents that do not filter social contacts of young children put them at higher percentage risk of infection. Many young children forget to distance themselves or even to wash their hands.

Quote:

Abstract

Background: Convalescent plasma (CP), despite limited evidence on its efficacy, is being widely used as a compassionate therapy for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of early CP therapy in COVID-19 progression. Methods: Open-label, single-center, randomized clinical trial performed in an academic center in Santiago, Chile from May 10, 2020, to July 18, 2020, with final follow-up August 17, 2020. The trial included patients hospitalized within the first 7 days of COVID-19 symptoms onset, presenting risk factors for illness progression and not on mechanical ventilation. The intervention consisted in immediate CP (early plasma group) versus no CP unless developing pre-specified criteria of deterioration (deferred plasma group). Additional standard treatment was allowed in both arms. The primary outcome was a composite of mechanical ventilation, hospitalization for >14 days or death. Key secondary outcomes included: time to respiratory failure, days of mechanical ventilation, hospital length-of-stay, mortality at 30 days, and SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR clearance rate. Results: Of 58 randomized patients (mean age, 65.8 years, 50% male), 57 (98.3%) completed the trial. A total of 13 (43.3%) participants from the deferred group received plasma based on clinical aggravation. We found no benefit in the primary outcome (32.1% vs 33.3%, OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.32-2.84, p>0.99) in the early versus deferred CP group. In-hospital mortality rate was 17.9% vs 6.7% (OR 3.04, 95% CI 0.54-17.2, p=0.25), mechanical ventilation 17.9% vs 6.7% (OR 3.04, 95% CI 0.54-17.2, p=0.25), and prolonged hospitalization 21.4% vs 30% (OR 0.64, 95%CI, 0.19-2.1, p=0.55) in early versus deferred CP group, respectively. Viral clearance rate on day 3 (26% vs 8%, p=0.20) and day 7 (38% vs 19%, p=0.37) did not differ between groups. Two patients experienced serious adverse events within 6 or less hours after plasma transfusion. Conclusion: Immediate addition of CP therapy in early stages of COVID-19 -compared to its use only in case of patient deterioration- did not confer benefits in mortality, length of hospitalization or mechanical ventilation requirement.

Quote:

Abstract

Background: Substantial COVID-19 research investment has been allocated to randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, which currently face recruitment challenges or early discontinuation. We aimed to estimate the effects of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine on survival in COVID-19 from all currently available RCT evidence, published and unpublished. Methods: Rapid meta-analysis of ongoing, completed, or discontinued RCTs on hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine treatment for any COVID-19 patients (protocol: https://osf.io/QESV4/). We systematically identified published and unpublished RCTs by September 14, 2020 (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, PubMed, Cochrane COVID-19 registry). All-cause mortality was extracted (publications/preprints) or requested from investigators and combined in random-effects meta-analyses, calculating odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), separately for hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine. Prespecified subgroup analyses included patient setting, diagnostic confirmation, control type, and publication status. Results: Sixty-two trials were potentially eligible. We included 16 unpublished trials (1596 patients) and 10 publications/preprints (6317 patients). The combined summary OR on all-cause mortality for hydroxychloroquine was 1.08 (95%CI: 0.99, 1.18; I-square=0%; 24 trials; 7659 patients) and for chloroquine 1.77 (95%CI: 0.15, 21.13, I-square=0%; 4 trials; 307 patients). We identified no subgroup effects. Conclusions: We found no benefit of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine on the survival of COVID-19 patients. For hydroxychloroquine, the confidence interval is compatible with increased mortality (OR 1.18) or negligibly reduced mortality (OR 0.99). Findings have unclear generalizability to outpatients, children, pregnant women, and people with comorbidities.