(1) Somebody quipped to me the other week: “the virus is a picky eater”. Now, Prof. Karl Friston of UC London, a well-known neuroscientist and computational modeler who is a member of “the independent SAGE committee” is interviewed here on UnHerd.
Now, from the unlikely source of a prominent member of the “Independent SAGE committee”, the group set up by Sir David King to challenge government scientific advice and accused by some of being populated with Left-wing activists, comes a claim that the true portion of people who are not even susceptible to Covid-19 may be as high as 80%.
A written essay is here. His thesis:
Theories abound as to which factors best explain the huge disparities between countries in the portion of the population that seems resistant or immune — everything from levels of vitamin D to ethnic-genetic and social and geographical differences may come into play — but Professor Friston makes clear that it does not primarily seem to be a function of government coronavirus policy. “Solving that — understanding that source of variation in terms of this non-susceptibility — is going to be the key to understanding the enormous variation between countries,” he said.
Controversial? We link, you decide.
(2) The Washington Examiner reports that the influential The Lancet paper, which claimed hydroxychloroquine was more harmful than helpful in the treatment of COVID19 based on dodgy Surgisphere data, has now been retracted by 3 of the 4 authors (the 4th is the CEO of Surgisphere). Here is the original retraction notice:
After publication of our Lancet Article,1 several concerns
were raised with respect to the veracity of the data
and analyses conducted by Surgisphere Corporation
and its founder and our co-author, Sapan Desai, in
our publication. We launched an independent third-
party peer review of Surgisphere with the consent of
Sapan Desai to evaluate the origination of the database
elements, to confirm the completeness of the database,
and to replicate the analyses presented in the paper.
Our independent peer reviewers informed us that
Surgisphere would not transfer the full dataset, client
contracts, and the full ISO audit report to their servers
for analysis as such transfer would violate client
agreements and confidentiality requirements. As such,
our reviewers were not able to conduct an independent
and private peer review and therefore notified us of their
withdrawal from the peer-review process.
We always aspire to perform our research in accordance
with the highest ethical and professional guidelines. We
can never forget the responsibility we have as researchers
to scrupulously ensure that we rely on data sources that
adhere to our high standards. Based on this development,
we can no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary
data sources. Due to this unfortunate development, the
authors request that the paper be retracted.
We all entered this collaboration to contribute
in good faith and at a time of great need during
the COVID-19 pandemic. We deeply apologise to
you, the editors, and the journal readership for any
embarrassment or inconvenience that this may have
The accompanying statement by the Lancet editorial board:
Statement from The Lancet
Today, three of the authors of the paper, “Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis”, have retracted their study. They were unable to complete an independent audit of the data underpinning their analysis. As a result, they have concluded that they “can no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources.” The Lancet takes issues of scientific integrity extremely seriously, and there are many outstanding questions about Surgisphere and the data that were allegedly included in this study. Following guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), institutional reviews of Surgisphere’s research collaborations are urgently needed.
(3) Elsewhere in the Lancet is an article with a “meta-analysis” of other studies (in plain English: a study in which the raw data of several original lstudies are combined into a larger dataset and the statistical analysis repeated in order to achieve greater productive power than the individual studies) on the effectiveness of distancing, face masks, and eye protection, in both healthcare and non-healthcare (community) settings.
From the summary (paragraphing and emphasis mine):
Our search identified 172 observational studies across 16 countries and six continents, with no randomised controlled trials and 44 relevant comparative studies in health-care and non-health-care settings (n=25 697 patients).
Transmission of viruses was lower with physical distancing of 1 m or more, compared with a distance of less than 1 m (n=10 736, pooled adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·18, 95% CI 0·09 to 0·38; risk difference [RD] –10·2%, 95% CI –11·5 to –7·5; moderate certainty); protection was increased as distance was lengthened (change in relative risk [RR] 2·02 per m; p_interaction=0·041; moderate certainty).
Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD –14·3%, –15·9 to –10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks; p =0·090; posterior probability >95%, low certainty).
Eye protection also was associated interaction with less infection (n=3713; aOR 0·22, 95% CI 0·12 to 0·39, RD –10·6%, 95% CI –12·5 to –7·7; low certainty).
Unadjusted studies and subgroup and sensitivity analyses showed similar findings.
ADDENDUM: “WHO frustrated by China’s info delays as coronavirus started to spread, report finds”. Is this damage control/reputation management on the part of the WHO, or the genuine expression of frustration by the technical levels of the organization? More about this tomorrow, G-d willing.