|
Jesus In A Can posted:That's, sadly, exactly what they can do. In the type of statistics they'll likely run on this trial, if there is a very small treatment effect (throw-away example, patients on remdesivir got better an average of 3 hours sooner than patients not on remdesivir, 2 weeks, 6 days, 21 hours vs. 3 weeks), their initial sample size may not have been large enough to show a statistically significant effect of the drug. Wouldn't this have to pass an ethics review board? How can they make the argument?
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2020 18:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 09:42 |
|
|
As someone who writes/runs clinical trials, I'm gonna bet changing the primary endpoint from a very objective one and pumping up the enrollment numbers is because the difference is small (if anything) and they're trying to increase power.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2020 18:32
|
|
|
Anyone in on the big oil tanker contango train? I had let myself slip pretty heavily into it, but the Gilead thing made me lose a few hours' sleep so I closed most of it. Pretty weird to be long Putin, long corona, short the normal world and feel bad about things maybe returning to normal. Tankers are making shitloads of money right now and will probably pay nice dividends next quarter but who the hell knows where the stocks will be.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2020 19:48
|
|
|
Ola posted:Anyone in on the big oil tanker contango train? I am, but I'm nervous about it. It looked like a much better trade before the OPEC meeting. That said, rates are holding up really well so far and Q1 and Q2 earnings will be spectacular. After that it gets a lot harder to predict. All other things equal lower oil production means less demand for tankers... for transport, anyway. It's hard to say how long the need for floating storage will persist. And on top of that, it's a commodity industry where managements are generally poor at allocating capital (buying ships at the top of booms, issuing equity at the bottoms of busts). You'll never see investors blindly rush into this sector and bid things up because they've been burned too many times before. But something like DHT can dividend out 4% this quarter if it wanted to and probably more in the next. So I think it makes sense to be long but cautious.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2020 20:36
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:Wouldn't this have to pass an ethics review board? How can they make the argument? I'm on an ethics board for a University that doesn't have a research hospital attached, so Residency Evil is going to be the one to ask that of. I know, from our mandate, if someone wants to increase their sample size, we only look at whether or not they are protecting the participants, not whether it is good science design/practice. That ... creates problems, but we have a narrow band within which we are allowed to deny a study modification. Say someone wanted to increase sample size because they want an additional arm in the study. It was originally a single arm study (does this drug work compared to what we've seen in the past) vs. adding an arm (does this drug work relative to a control/placebo/some other drug). From a review board perspective, as long as they have maintained their protection of participant rights and safety, it would be allowed. It's up to peer review and (hopefully) people like RE who conceptualize the research design to determine whether that is good science. Does running a trial group, then increasing sample size, THEN running a control group make for good science? Not usually, but it depends entirely on what is being studied.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2020 21:11
|
|
|
Agronox posted:I am, but I'm nervous about it. It looked like a much better trade before the OPEC meeting. I think it actually looks better now, price war wise. I was confident the OPEC meeting was bullshit, but the world is aching for good news so it's super sensitive to stuff like Gilead. It seems like Putin's plan is for real to kill US shale and it would be weird to give up after just a few weeks of price war. I think he wants that legitimacy of "we've reached out, we did our bit", but he definitely wants low prices for a year or two. I don't remember if I wrote it down somewhere or just said it in discussion, but I definitely predicted stuff like this: https://www.ft.com/content/679a2c1b-40d5-4a62-8205-52b87711de14 quote:Russia’s oil producers are at odds over their roles in the world’s largest crude reduction agreement, throwing into doubt Moscow’s promise to slash output. Yeah right. "Putin's totally going to cut, but he had some trouble turning the tap because of a sprained wrist.... Yeah, the wrist has healed, but he has a cake in the oven that is about to burn... oops, the laundry is done, needs hanging, will cut soon, any minute now" However, good as the case may seem, safe as the "long Putin, long virus, long tax dodging tanker tycoons" case may seem, it just takes one bit of good news to smash the tankers. If we get a reaction to this latest sucker rally which drags the tankers down, but contango remains, then I'm going back in the same number of stocks to hopefully buy the same dividends at a discount. I have no idea for it beyond Q2, other than many tankers seem to have gotten on $40-50k 2-3 year contracts rather than spot contracts in the $150-200k range, which is obviously good for a vessel that costs sub $25k to run. That said, I'm happy about this thread which I read now and then but have hardly, if ever, posted in. It's a safe space where you can time stamp your stupid takes. It think it's a sucker's rally right now, but likely the rally is just a rally and I'm the sucker.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2020 21:12
|
|
|
Jesus In A Can posted:That's, sadly, exactly what they can do. In the type of statistics they'll likely run on this trial, if there is a very small treatment effect (throw-away example, patients on remdesivir got better an average of 3 hours sooner than patients not on remdesivir, 2 weeks, 6 days, 21 hours vs. 3 weeks), their initial sample size may not have been large enough to show a statistically significant effect of the drug. This is the most likely answer. I forgot which company did this crap with oseltamivir(Tamiflu). Oseltamivir was shown to be ineffective with subsequent NONcompany funded trials. I'm still forced to prescribe it even though it's worthless. Whenever they're increasing sample size, it's because they're fishing for favorable looking subsets(but is actually ineffective). It's hard to treat retroviruses. There's a reason that despite 3 decades long research into HIV, the best we can do requires crazy regimens of pills.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2020 21:13
|
|
|
It brings me no joy to report that us GILD put-holders are not going to get paid 
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2020 21:15
|
|
|
GoGoGadgetChris posted:It brings me no joy to report that us GILD put-holders are not going to get paid It frustrates me to no end that I and most of the medical establishment will be forced to prescribe remdesivir even though it's ineffective. I guess I'll make myself feel better by buying calls 
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2020 21:21
|
|
|
Who is forcing you to prescribe an ineffective drug? The patient, doctor, pharmacist? Not being snarky, just don't know how it works.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2020 22:26
|
|
|
GILD juices the study to produce an "effective" result for COVID-19 treatment. FDA/Trump says it's cool and good and should be used because we "should do everything possible against this virus to get the *not a doctor, but this should be broadly accurate (eager to be proven wrong)
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2020 22:31
|
|
|
GoGoGadgetChris posted:It brings me no joy to report that us GILD put-holders are not going to get paid I'm not sure it's going to shoot up to 100, but it might not crash like some people assumed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2020 22:33
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/MONETARY_MAYHEM/status/1251553991269498882?s=20
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2020 23:29
|
|
|
GTJustin posted:Who is forcing you to prescribe an ineffective drug? The patient, doctor, pharmacist? Not being snarky, just don't know how it works. Guidelines provided either by the your department or even the specialty board. Forced is the wrong word. Pressure would be more appropriate. Let's take the example of influenza and oseltamivir. Here is the cochrane review article for oseltamivir. https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD008965.pub4/full quote:On the basis of the findings of this review, clinicians and healthcare policy‐makers should urgently revise current recommendations for use of the neuraminidase inhibitors (NIs) for individuals with influenza. Our findings confirm that both oseltamivir and zanamivir reduce the time to symptomatic improvement in adults (but not asthmatic children) with influenza‐like illness. The size of this effect is small, approximately half a day. It is unclear whether this is superior to treatment with commonly used antipyretic medications. However, we did not find any credible evidence that either oseltamivir or zanamivir reduce the risk of complications of influenza, particularly pneumonia, nor reduce risk of hospitalisation or death. Moreover, even in individuals at higher risk of complications, such as children with asthma or the elderly, we found no evidence of a beneficial effect for reducing risks of complications. On top of that the half day benefit is only those whose symptoms has been present for less than 2 days. Despite this, my department TO THIS DAY has guidelines to treat higher risk influenza patients with oseltamivir despite the bolded part of the study above. Not just my department, the CDC has the same ineffective recommendations. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/antivirals/summary-clinicians.htm If there is any bad outcomes, case reviews hounds me for not treating with oseltamivir. I used to copy and paste the above study to case review which is usually the end of it. But for the last few years, I placed a premium on my nonclinical time so I just put in the orderset which includes oseltamivir. Especially considering the safety profile of the medicine. Now this might not apply to remdesivir. The safety profile appears to be terrible even in studies funded by the company. However, GILD changing study parameters to increase study size strongly points to them following the oseltamivir playbook.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2020 23:57
|
|
|
lostleaf posted:This is the most likely answer. I forgot which company did this crap with oseltamivir(Tamiflu). Oseltamivir was shown to be ineffective with subsequent NONcompany funded trials. I'm still forced to prescribe it even though it's worthless. Whenever they're increasing sample size, it's because they're fishing for favorable looking subsets(but is actually ineffective). So Tamiflu doesn’t do any good for dealing with the Flu? What a waste.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2020 23:59
|
|
|
Jack Daniels posted:
2648
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2020 00:56
|
|
CONTEST: HOW LOW WILL SPX BE THIS WEEK 4/19 - 4/25?
|
Jack Daniels posted:
CURRENT all red so far.. no one voting for gap up and rip all week huh lol?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2020 00:59
|
|
|
2633
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2020 01:02
|
|
|
latinotwink1997 posted:So Tamiflu doesn’t do any good for dealing with the Flu? What a waste. oseltamivir is equivalent to the homeopathic medication you can buy at Target. Literally tens of BILLIONS of dollars wasted on this medication over the last 10 years. Just imagine how many billions on remdesivir when they're juicing the stats.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2020 01:09
|
|
|
Jesus In A Can posted:I'm on an ethics board for a University that doesn't have a research hospital attached, so Residency Evil is going to be the one to ask that of. I know, from our mandate, if someone wants to increase their sample size, we only look at whether or not they are protecting the participants, not whether it is good science design/practice. That ... creates problems, but we have a narrow band within which we are allowed to deny a study modification. Yup, this is right on. An ethics board is typically separate from a scientific review board/institutional review board/etc, which is responsible for determining whether the science is "good." To be honest, I can definitely imagine an IRB saying "sure" to an expansion cohort in a situation as highly charged as this one, even with shaky rationale. It can even be as simple as: Board: This seems like it might not be working? Investigator: Well, maybe it is? And gently caress, it's not like we have too many other options, right? What do we have to lose? Board: gently caress, yeah, I guess. Let's give it a shot. Residency Evil fucked around with this message at 01:17 on Apr 19, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2020 01:13
|
|
|
Jack Daniels posted:CURRENT 2875 (gently caress it I have no stocks yet)
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2020 01:24
|
|
|
Freezer posted:Thanks for this, good perspective I can tell you want I’m going to do—not saying it’s a good idea, haha. My current long focus is on stocks that cater to large enterprises, as I think those will be the most resilient to the consumer demand drop. I bought a lot of CRWD at 58 and plan to buy more. I’m also very pro DOCU and plan to get into CRM after they report earnings. Anything with large real estate holdings or debt levels should be avoided. I also like selling pretty OTM puts/calls with a cover. The options premium is so high right now that you can make a great return. Towards summer, I’ll start buying lots of banks, O&G, ad revenue dependent businesses, and potentially REITs. Shout out to the poster who talked about putting together the hellworld ETF, because that’s what I think will perform well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2020 01:43
|
|
|
So I've been sitting here thinking that CDC numbers show cause for optimism. If you look at 2 week active cases I think that may be true. However, my little hole of autism where I started charting out the first and second order derivatives of the total case growth has shown one thing I didn't feel very comforted by, and that's a trend line that looks marginally linear between 3/22 and the present of increasing acceleration (second order growth). I pooped out a forecaster that will look out 100 days using the linear regression of the observed cumulative case load's second derivative, and then worked the first order derivative and the cumulative cases backwards out of that. That model, tonight, is predicting: 897k cases next Friday 3.6MM cases (1% of US pop) May 13 33MM cases (10% of US pop) May 24 Full infection by June This model probably isn't useful, but maybe don't go deciding to run outdoors and start licking door handles just because the 2 week window of cases is tapering.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2020 01:45
|
|
|
Omerta posted:Shout out to the poster who talked about putting together the hellworld ETF, because that’s what I think will perform well. That was me and I have most of those stocks watchlisted. I'm glad at least someone else was interested/entertained. I think that, after the initial way of nonpayments for rent is dealt with, the rental home businesses from the list are gonna make bank: American Homes 4 Rent Invitation Homes But, I would feel sick investing in them and hate their existence. I'm very much conflicted. AMZN, WMT and BA (first 3 on the list) have been doing quite well since the March lows.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2020 02:13
|
|
|
Dwight Eisenhower posted:That model, tonight, is predicting: Let's look at some data:  (the red line is the USA) 33m cases would be 100,000 cases per million. Full infection would be 1,000,000 per million. On that log scale of confirmed cases, 10,000 per mil isn't even visible on the y-axis; it's just barely off the chart. We might reach that in May. The other milestones would only be reached if we essentially stopped the public health / social distancing response, everywhere, immediately.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2020 02:27
|
|
|
pmchem posted:Let's look at some data: I'm not putting money on these numbers, I am also going to freeze forecasts to see how well they align with observed reality and with each other. Since 3/22 the acceleration of single day growth is fitting at gaining ~0.0004531942139 cases per day per day. Ultimately that number needs to go negative (and will some day), but if it's trending positive right now it means we're going to be seeing more cases faster in the U.S. There's multiple reasons to believe that we won't hit 350mm confirmed cases in the U.S., notably, testing is so rubbish that we won't ever confirm it across the entire population. But after charting the first and second derivatives and seeing the growth rate's fall tapering off, and a linearish growth in acceleration, I felt like running it through to completion. I don't think this prediction's worth much, and I don't know much about epidemiology. Just sharing what my keyboard banging produced.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2020 02:57
|
|
|
I think growth rates of confirmed tests have been and still are a function of testing rate and say not very much on the actual increase in cases. Hospitalizations and (to a lesser extent, due to attribution problems) deaths are better metrics.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2020 03:11
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I think growth rates of confirmed tests have been and still are a function of testing rate and say not very much on the actual increase in cases. Hospitalizations and (to a lesser extent, due to attribution problems) deaths are better metrics. Even deaths are not great metrics, since without testing it is difficult to attribute a death to covid-19. That is why testing is absolutely critical -- it informs basically every relevant statistic. Without sufficient testing capacity (which we don't have today, and don't even seem to be on the way to having any time soon) we're just guessing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2020 03:13
|
|
|
That's the attribution problem I mentioned. But with testing, we're already screwed even if we develop adequate testing capacity in the future: it's too late to chart the increase and make a meaningful projection. The fact that testing capacity has changed over time obviously screws with any attempt to make projections based on increases in discovered cases. Even hospitalizations are problematic, because in places like NYC, you'd tell people who are "quite ill but not deathly ill" to go home, whereas in a place like the SF bay area, anyone who is "hmm, pretty sick I guess" is getting hospitalized. (Those are very technical medical terms.) But for the most part if you exclude the worst-hit places like NYC, New Orleans, etc., the criteria for determining admittance have been fairly consistent, so it might be the best metric to use for plotting curves.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2020 04:04
|
|
|
Jack Daniels posted:CURRENT Gap open 2880 and that's the low for team Optimism. Rip all week.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2020 04:30
|
|
|
It's been awhile since I was in bioethics, but basically there's a set of good arguments for IRBs (sufficiently sophisticated ones, and that varies a lot) to also scrutinize the scientific validity of studies and study modifications. This is because study participation carries inherent costs and, usually, risks, so there's some minimum level of scientific benefit necessary to justify them. In practice, though, this scrutiny virtually never happens except in egregious cases. Reviewers already often face absurd levels of suspicion and hostility from researchers as it is.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2020 06:54
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:It's been awhile since I was in bioethics, but basically there's a set of good arguments for IRBs (sufficiently sophisticated ones, and that varies a lot) to also scrutinize the scientific validity of studies and study modifications. This is because study participation carries inherent costs and, usually, risks, so there's some minimum level of scientific benefit necessary to justify them. In practice, though, this scrutiny virtually never happens except in egregious cases. Reviewers already often face absurd levels of suspicion and hostility from researchers as it is. Review is really hard. There are tons of protocols that are being written/reviewed at any given time in a major research institution. The IRB is composed of volunteers that are reading/reviewing them in their free time. You have a protocol that's been written by one of the top experts in the field. The reviewer is, 99% of the time, not going to be that. Serious errors are going to be hard for them to catch, much less small ones.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2020 13:34
|
|
|
GoGoGadgetChris posted:Heeheeeee I am officially GILDed Not in GILD but made a bunch on sympathy play BCRX, they’ve got a drug similar to Remdesivir in P1
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2020 15:31
|
|
|
Jack Daniels posted:CURRENT Honestly I'm a bit surprised by how low the average and median guesses are.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2020 16:57
|
|
|
Freezer posted:Honestly I'm a bit surprised by how low the average and median guesses are. I think some of them are undoubtedly joke guesses. This used to be a comedy forum, after all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2020 16:59
|
|
|
This is a pretty fantastic episode if anyone is interested in a little more detail/background on what the fed is doing. Has also made me more bullish in the short term (ie Don't Fight the Fed) https://chatwithtraders.com/ep-192-kevin-muir-the-macro-tourist/
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2020 17:29
|
|
|
tminz posted:This is a pretty fantastic episode if anyone is interested in a little more detail/background on what the fed is doing. Has also made me more bullish in the short term (ie Don't Fight the Fed) I'm reflexively dubious of anything sponsored by bitcoin flippers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2020 17:35
|
|
|
Uhhh I mean it's not trading advice/related to Bitcoin in anyway but sure. If you've listened to a financial podcast that's not NPR-based they all have crypto ads.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2020 17:38
|
|
|
tminz posted:Uhhh I mean it's not trading advice/related to Bitcoin in anyway but sure. If you've listened to a financial podcast that's not NPR-based they all have crypto ads. Don't get me wrong, "Don't fight the Fed" is pretty sage advice regardless of source. Moving against unlimited capital is pretty likely to end badly. Unrelated: Reuters is reporting Nieman-Marcus may file for bankruptcy protection as soon as this week. saintonan fucked around with this message at 17:49 on Apr 19, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2020 17:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 09:42 |
|
|
I mean, if it weren't for The Fed's drastic and unprecedented intervention, I would be a lot more bearish and would have gone all cash back in early March. But, short of a situation where they are given the authorization to buy equities, and keep buying those too until they own a significant (let's say, 20% or more) of the combined market, I don't see how they can continue to prop up asset prices for much longer. Once companies start declaring bankruptcy, and Q2 results come out in a few months, and long-term economic outlook craters as people understand that things won't be going back to normal any time soon, investors will come to the sudden realization that the stocks they are holding are actually worth one tenth that price if not much less, and they will seek to sell in order to capture their gains. That's just my overall sentiment, though, and admittedly it rests on the assumption that there is at least some semblance of rationality in all this. And if there is, then right now Wile E. Coyote is desperately blowing air into his shoddy parachute to prevent a plunge, which is inevitable. If not, we're in the twilight zone and anything is possible. Slow News Day fucked around with this message at 18:38 on Apr 19, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2020 18:35
|
|