Live data from Hacker News

Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus

thelancet.com

61–65 of 65 posts

Re: Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus

#61
post #58
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The concern is not about privacy, but about forced treatment against your will. That's a big deal, and most countries have strict law in place to stop it happening in most situations. There are some exceptions for people who are unable to make that choice, but this is limited to people who are not conscious, or who have severe learning disability, or who are currently severely mentally ill.

How exactly did we go from a scientific paper waivering requirements to use patient data, to forced treatment? I’m lost.

Because bronchoalveolar lavage, one of many procedures used here, is an invasive medical procedure that has no purpose other than to obtain information for diagnosis or scientific research. A small endescope is passed down the trachea, and part of the lung tissue irrigated with fluid, and the fluid (now containing cellular detritis) analysed. It is intensely uncomfortable if performed without sedataion and bronchoscopy is typically performed under heavy sedataion as a result. All of these facts carry risk -- risks which, under international law, the patient has to consent to.

Re: Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus

#62

> "Suspected patients were isolated using airborne precautions in the designated hospital, Jin Yin-tan Hospital (Wuhan, China), and fit-tested N95 masks and airborne precautions for aerosol-generating procedures were taken. > This study was approved by the National Health Commission of China and Ethics Commission of Jin Yin-tan Hospital (KY-2020-01.01). > Written informed consent was waived by the Ethics Commission o…

> In a western country, one of the tenants of medical ethics is that, if you have capacity to consent, you can always refuse to give it.

Always? That's just not true.

In the US, the CDC has the power to involuntarily quarantine AND EXAMINE people.

See their page about legal authority: https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/aboutlawsregulationsquarantin...

Also, one of the relevant laws (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title42/html...) says this:

>>> (d) Apprehension and examination of persons reasonably believed to be infected

>>> (1) Regulations prescribed under this section may provide for the apprehension and examination of any individual reasonably believed to be infected with a communicable disease in a qualifying stage and (A) to be moving or about to move from a State to another State; or (B) to be a probable source of infection to individuals who, while infected with such disease in a qualifying stage, will be moving from a State to another State. Such regulations may provide that if upon examination any such individual is found to be infected, he may be detained for such time and in such manner as may be reasonably necessary.

Health officials at the state level also have similar powers. Here's a summary of state-level laws: https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/state-quarantine-and-is...

In many cases, the government has various powers like arresting, fining, or jailing people for violating quarantine or entering private property to investigate.

Re: Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus

#63
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where are you getting the 2700 and 80 numbers from? I couldn’t find a reliable up to date counter. Even the CDC only lists countries.

WHO is now publishing daily situation reports: https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2...

Their "Situation Report - 7" link is broken (points to something, but the wrong document).

I managed to guess the correct URL:

https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situati...

This says 2741 confirmed cases in China and 2798 globally.

Re: Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus

#64
post #7

We have 2700 confirmed cases, 80 dead. Some also in the West and we are still talking about these initial 41? Are we a pre or post internet civilisation? Honestly 4chan is doing better than this. Reading through their noise is better than the clean data coming out of the officials. For example they have people in pools of blood on the street with people in the bio suits China are using. Maybe it's obvious people will…

> obvious people will throw up blood with this new SARS, but the officials aren't mentioning it

Aren't mentioning it? How can you say that?

The linked article directly addresses this right in the Findings section, where it says, "haemoptysis (two [5%] of 39)".

Wikipedia's definition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemoptysis): "Hemoptysis is the coughing up of blood or blood-stained mucus from the bronchi, larynx, trachea, or lungs."

So 5% of (that small sample size of) patients cough up blood.

Re: Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus

#65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"A war situation" is precisely when you need this sort of thinking: the modern ethical framework for medical research with interventions is heavily influenced by "The Nuremberg Code". I don't think we need to describe in detail why people thought that code was necessary. In most of these cases, it is highly unlikely that any significant number of the patients will withhold their consent: so to not ask it is basically…

There is nothing to suggest that any patient has withheld consent, just that the requirement to get consent in written form was waived. Given how sick these patients were this is reasonable. Time is of the essence here. If I was put in the situation these researcher are in I would act first and take the risk of being put on trial later. Real ethics means sometimes you have to do more than just follow rules.

Yup. "If you agree please cough in this paper" does not sound like a very smart move.
Post reply on HN