Bluto Blutarsky
Footballguy
I gave 80 to an ER RN friend back in April for her to share with co-workers. Felt right
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
*** OFFICIAL *** COVID-19 CoronaVirus Thread. Fresh epidemic fears as child pneumonia cases surge in Europe after China outbreak. NOW in USA (12 Viewers)
- Thread starter Big League Chew
- Start date
Super King
Footballguy
I'm done arguing with these people. Though, I'm luckily in an area where most people (99%) wear a mask in stores, anytime you're not sitting down at a table in a restaurant, etc. I couldn't imagine the anxiety I would have if I was living somewhere that had spiking case numbers and folks weren't wearing masks. I'd probably be the nervous wreck I was back in late March early April when NO ONE was wearing a mask , except usually me and one other person in the store.
I was talking with a pediatrician a few days ago and she said that they are struggling to stay busy. Some of it is fear of going to the doctor but most of to it is kids just aren’t getting sick. No school, less daycare, masks, hand washing and social distancing has done wonders for the health of the kids.
She also mentioned the flu and said that she hopes masks continue to be a thing during flu season even after COVID.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
This is revisionist history.
There were plenty of studies that showed the efficiency of a large spectrum of masks in lab studies. From tea cloth to surgical style and concluding that they would provide a benefit. How rigorous could the studies be that you speak of when in March this guy just threw a washcloth over his face and tested the light scattering...The argument was always that these weren't real world settings, not that they werent effective for filtration. Then when the real world locations that implemented mask usage saw reductions in transmission, we constantly heard doctors say that these weren't RCT's or that other measures could explain it.
Doctors weren't citing poor results in lab studies for why masks weren't useful.
We heard...
False sense of security. No RCT. Will touch face more. We are too stupid to put them on and take them off right. Poor fit, HCW's need them, etc etc.
You dont even need to leave this thread to follow along with the chronology of how it went down. Fish called it back in early February in here that it always was about supply.
Last edited by a moderator:
The biggest mistake on the mask messaging was not suggesting the use of any face covering earlier but I can understand that. I remember hearing the horror of nurses in some hotspots having to use scarves because they couldn’t get proper PPE. Well in that setting it still is horrifying as it’s not adequate for those directly treating COVID patients.
The shift also came with change in focus from masks to protect yourself to mask to protect others. And further prioritized as the cause of spread shifted to airborne droplets rather than contact with shared surfaces.
The shift also came with change in focus from masks to protect yourself to mask to protect others. And further prioritized as the cause of spread shifted to airborne droplets rather than contact with shared surfaces.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
Yes droplet transmission was known but there was no consensus on what to do to prevent it. Much of the early prevention was focused on hand washing and sanitized surfaces/items others may have touched. Then social distancing followed. It wasn’t until later that the focus shifted to preventing the droplets from getting into the air. Prior to that it was assumed that as long as you weren’t within 6 feet, the droplets would harmlessly fall to the ground.
Bottom line, they should have promoted basic face coverings from the beginning and it was a huge mistake by many. And certainly it was terrible to badmouth their use. But under the circumstances, I’m willing to give them a little bit of a break. No one knew that basic cloth face coverings would make this much of a difference.
Terminalxylem
Footballguy
Posting similar info isn’t necessarily repeating, but regardless, can you educate me how public health officials should have ensured appropriate PPE was allocated to those at highest risk?
Terminalxylem
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Terminalxylem
Footballguy
Give it up. (S)he doesn’t understand how science works, that hypotheses are revised based on empiric data. (S)he’d rather eternally vilify all HCW for outdated advice from a few public health officials.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
Terminalxylem
Footballguy
Seriously, you don't have to agree with me, but calling me a liar is another thing altogether. Feel free to point out where I lied, and then it would be great if you would attempt to answer at least one of the questions I've asked you.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
Think about going to the doctor and having this conversation.
Patient: Hey doc how does this thing spread.
Doctor: Respiratory droplets that you can breathe into your lungs or get sneezed into your mouth or nose.
Patient: What should I do to help prevent that?
Doctor: wash your hands.
Patient: Would wearing one of those masks you have on help?
Doctor: No.
I wish I could say this was hyperbole. But it isn't. This is actually what happened in our country.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
Terminalxylem
Footballguy
It is flu season in the Southern Hemisphere and it is virtually non existent. https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-19-measures-have-all-but-wiped-out-the-flu-in-the-southern-hemisphere-11595440682
GroveDiesel
Footballguy
Not just in our country but internationally as well. It was only a out a month ago that the WHO finally recommended masks/face coverings for the general public. Before that it was just for those caring for someone infected.
I understand the early desire to make sure that medical professionals who were likely to come into contact with Covid or caring for those with Covid had access to N95s and surgical masks as much as possible, but I don’t think there’s any way to get around that the early guidance for several months was just flat out wrong.
And yes, the public was flat out being told that mask/facial covering use for the general public was not effective. There are all sorts of reasonings for why that was being said, but all of those reasonings were ultimately wrong. If we don’t admit that and aren’t willing to evaluate what went wrong, then it’s just piling on another failure and making future failures more likely than they should be.
shadyridr
Footballguy
The Z Machine
Footballguy
This is pretty much how I remember it going down as well. The US lagged behind other countries in mandatory mask usage. Back in March, I remember seeing videos of teams of people in the Czech Republic sewing masks for they're population. Their Prime Minister addressed Parliament wearing a mask.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/30/czechs-get-to-work-making-masks-after-government-decree-coronavirus
I didn't start wearing a mask until late April.
Last edited by a moderator:
AAABatteries
Footballguy
They have apparently only been testing those that are very sick - I’ve pointed it out a couple of times but their positivity rate is 40%.
The Commish
Footballguy
And the political part of it comes in with the concern around hoarding. Our officials (at least Fauci) admitted that was a factor given what they were seeing with toilet paper. That there is a "political part" to this whole thing is maddening. This thing where states were forced to fight with each other for PPE leaving healthcare workers out to dry because the government wouldn't protect them via DPA was completely asinine. I know this is the FFA thread, so I'll leave it there...but all this was a factor in the mask narrative.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
In this topsy-turvy world, it's good to know that we can count on some things never changing. For example, the FDA still wants to kill you:
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/07/22/893931848/rapid-cheap-less-accurate-coronavirus-testing-has-a-place-scientists-say
Sand
Footballguy
Depends on whether the accuracy is in false positives (ok) or false negatives (not ok).
The Z Machine
Footballguy
FYI, in the public health world, the rate of false positives is called "specificity" and the rate of false negatives is called "sensitivity".
From: https://www.health.ny.gov/diseases/chronic/discreen.htm#:~:text=Sensitivity refers to a test's,have a disease as negative.
"Sensitivity refers to a test's ability to designate an individual with disease as positive. A highly sensitive test means that there are few false negative results, and thus fewer cases of disease are missed. The specificity of a test is its ability to designate an individual who does not have a disease as negative. A highly specific test means that there are few false positive results."
worrierking
Footballguy
Correct answer!
Wide distribution of a rapid home test that delivers more false positives than false negatives would be fantastic. People who test positive should then go get the more accurate PCR tests, which should be more readily available because the home test will reduce demand for the current test. Results should be much faster.
False negatives ruin everything, with infected people running rampant through society thinking they are disease free.
shader
Footballguy
Wednesday numbers
Deaths in 21 "Outbreak States"
(CA, TX, FL, AZ, GA, NC, LA, OH, TN, SC, AL, WA, WI, MS, UT, MO, AK, NV, OK, KS, NM)
July 22: 1,009 deaths
Last three Wednesdays: (581,713,1009)
7-day average in deaths
7/7: 340
7/8: 361
7/9: 391
7/10: 421
7/11: 474
7/12: 496
7/13: 497
7/14: 513
7/15: 532
7/16: 545
7/17: 570
7/18: 589
7/19: 594
7/20: 611
7/21: 632
7/22: 674
Deaths in 21 "Outbreak States"
(CA, TX, FL, AZ, GA, NC, LA, OH, TN, SC, AL, WA, WI, MS, UT, MO, AK, NV, OK, KS, NM)
July 22: 1,009 deaths
Last three Wednesdays: (581,713,1009)
7-day average in deaths
7/7: 340
7/8: 361
7/9: 391
7/10: 421
7/11: 474
7/12: 496
7/13: 497
7/14: 513
7/15: 532
7/16: 545
7/17: 570
7/18: 589
7/19: 594
7/20: 611
7/21: 632
7/22: 674
CR69
Footballguy
Do you think those jokes about two more weeks from two weeks ago are still funny? Wonder where those talking points went...
Doug B
Footballguy
The linked article is extremely content-rich, full of enlightening laymen-level information about the risk of COVID reinfection. This one, I really have spoilered for length -- but I've pulled a few highlights out of the spoiler box for quick perusal. If anyone is game for a deeper dive, the full text of the article is a click away.
...
Can You Get Covid-19 Again? It’s Very Unlikely, Experts Say (New York Times, 7/23/2020)
Reports of reinfection instead may be cases of drawn-out illness. A decline in antibodies is normal after a few weeks, and people are protected from the coronavirus in other ways.
Can You Get Covid-19 Again? It’s Very Unlikely, Experts Say
Reports of reinfection instead may be cases of drawn-out illness. A decline in antibodies is normal after a few weeks, and people are protected from the coronavirus in other ways.
By Apoorva Mandavilli
Published July 22, 2020 | Updated July 23, 2020, 3:33 a.m. ET
The anecdotes are alarming. A woman in Los Angeles seemed to recover from Covid-19, but weeks later took a turn for the worse and tested positive again. A New Jersey doctor claimed several patients healed from one bout only to become reinfected with the coronavirus. And another doctor said a second round of illness was a reality for some people, and was much more severe.
These recent accounts tap into people’s deepest anxieties that they are destined to succumb to Covid-19 over and over, feeling progressively sicker, and will never emerge from this nightmarish pandemic. And these stories fuel fears that we won’t be able to reach herd immunity — the ultimate destination where the virus can no longer find enough victims to pose a deadly threat.
But the anecdotes are just that — stories without evidence of reinfections, according to nearly a dozen experts who study viruses. “I haven’t heard of a case where it’s been truly unambiguously demonstrated,” said Marc Lipsitch, an epidemiologist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.
Other experts were even more reassuring. While little is definitively known about the coronavirus, just seven months into the pandemic, the new virus is behaving like most others, they said, lending credence to the belief that herd immunity can be achieved with a vaccine.
It may be possible for the coronavirus to strike the same person twice, but it’s highly unlikely that it would do so in such a short window or to make people sicker the second time, they said. What’s more likely is that some people have a drawn-out course of infection, with the virus taking a slow toll weeks to months after their initial exposure.
People infected with the coronavirus typically produce immune molecules called antibodies. Several teams have recently reported that the levels of these antibodies decline in two to three months, causing some consternation. But a drop in antibodies is perfectly normal after an acute infection subsides, said Dr. Michael Mina, an immunologist at Harvard University.
Many clinicians are “scratching their heads saying, ‘What an extraordinarily odd virus that it’s not leading to robust immunity,’ but they’re totally wrong,’” Dr. Mina said. “It doesn’t get more textbook than this.”
Antibodies are not the only form of protection against pathogens. The coronavirus also provokes a vigorous defense from immune cells that can kill the virus and quickly rouse reinforcements for future battles. Less is known about how long these so-called memory T cells persist — those that recognize other coronaviruses may linger for life — but they can buttress defenses against the new coronavirus.
“If those are maintained, and especially if they’re maintained within the lung and the respiratory tract, then I think they can do a pretty good job of stopping an infection from spreading,” said Akiko Iwasaki, an immunologist at Yale University.
Megan Kent, 37, a medical speech pathologist who lives just outside Boston, first tested positive for the virus on March 30, after her boyfriend became ill. She couldn’t smell or taste anything, she recalled, but otherwise felt fine. After a 14-day quarantine, she went back to work at Melrose Wakefield Hospital and also helped out at a nursing home.
On May 8, Ms. Kent suddenly felt ill. “I felt like a Mack truck hit me,” she said. She slept the whole weekend and went to the hospital on Monday, convinced she had mononucleosis. The next day she tested positive for the coronavirus — again. She was unwell for nearly a month, and has since learned she has antibodies.
“This time around was a hundred times worse,” she said. “Was I reinfected?”
There are other, more plausible explanations for what Ms. Kent experienced, experts said. “I’m not saying it can’t happen. But from what I’ve seen so far, that would be an uncommon phenomenon,” said Dr. Peter Hotez, the dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine.
Ms. Kent may not have fully recovered, even though she felt better, for example. The virus may have secreted itself into certain parts of the body — as the Ebola virus is known to do — and then resurfaced. She did not get tested between the two positives, but even if she had, faulty tests and low viral levels can produce a false negative.
Given these more likely scenarios, Dr. Mina had choice words for the physicians who caused the panic over reports of reinfections. “This is so bad, people have lost their minds,” he said. “It’s just sensationalist click bait.”
In the early weeks of the pandemic, some people in China, Japan and South Korea tested positive twice, sparking similar fears.
South Korea’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention investigated 285 of those cases, and found that several of the second positives came two months after the first, and in one case 82 days later. Nearly half of the people had symptoms at the second test. But the researchers were unable to grow live virus from any of the samples, and the infected people hadn’t spread the virus to others.
“It was pretty solid epidemiological and virological evidence that reinfection was not happening, at least in those people,” said Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at Columbia University in New York.
Most people who are exposed to the coronavirus make antibodies that can destroy the virus; the more severe the symptoms, the stronger the response. (A few people don’t produce the antibodies, but that’s true for any virus.) Worries about reinfection have been fueled by recent studies suggesting that these antibody levels plummet.
For example, a study published in June found that antibodies to one part of the virus fell to undetectable levels within three months in 40 percent of asymptomatic people. Last week, a study that has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal showed that neutralizing antibodies — the powerful subtype that can stop the virus from infecting cells — declined sharply within a month.
“It’s actually incredibly depressing,” said Michael Malim, a virologist at King’s College London. “It’s a huge drop.”
But other work suggests that the antibody levels decline — and then stabilize. In a study of nearly 20,000 people posted to the online server MedRxiv on July 17, the vast majority made plentiful antibodies, and half of those with low levels still had antibodies that could destroy the virus.
“None of this is really surprising from a biological point of view,” said Florian Krammer, an immunologist at the Icahn Mount Sinai School of Medicine who led that study.
Dr. Mina agreed. “This is a famous dynamic of how antibodies develop after infection: They go very, very high, and then they come back down," he said.
He elaborated: The first cells that secrete antibodies during an infection are called plasmablasts, which expand exponentially into a pool of millions. But the body can’t sustain those levels. Once the infection wanes, a small fraction of the cells enters the bone marrow and sets up shop to create long-term immunity memory, which can churn out antibodies when they’re needed again. The rest of the plasmablasts wither and die.
In children, each subsequent exposure to a virus — or to a vaccine — boosts immunity until, by adulthood, the antibody response is steady and strong.
What’s unusual in the current pandemic, Dr. Mina said, is to see how this dynamic plays out in adults, because they so rarely experience a virus for the first time.
Even after the first surge of immunity fades, there is likely to be some residual protection. And while antibodies have received all the attention because they are easier to study and detect, memory T cells and B cells are also powerful immune warriors in a fight against any pathogen.
A study published July 15, for example, looked at three different groups. In one, each of 36 people exposed to the new virus had T cells that recognize a protein that looks similar in all coronaviruses. In another, 23 people infected with the SARS virus in 2003 also had these T cells, as did 37 people in the third group who were never exposed to either pathogen.
“A level of pre-existing immunity against SARS-CoV2 appears to exist in the general population,” said Dr. Antonio Bertoletti, a virologist at Duke NUS Medical School in Singapore.
The immunity may have been stimulated by prior exposure to coronaviruses that cause common colds. These T cells may not thwart infection, but they would blunt the illness and may explain why some people with Covid-19 have mild to no symptoms. “I believe that cellular and antibody immunity will be equally important,” Dr. Bertoletti said.
Vaccine trials that closely track volunteers may deliver more information about the nature of immunity to the new coronavirus and the level needed to block reinfection. Research in monkeys offers hope: In a study of nine rhesus macaques, for example, exposure to the virus induced immunity that was strong enough to prevent a second infection.
Researchers are tracking infected monkeys to determine how long this protection lasts. “Durability studies by their nature take time,” said Dr. Dan Barouch, a virologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston who led the study.
Dr. Barouch and other experts rejected fears that herd immunity might never be reached.
“We achieve herd immunity all the time with less than perfect vaccines,” said Dr. Saad Omer, the director of the Yale Institute for Global Health. “It’s very rare in fact to have vaccines that are 100-percent effective.”
A vaccine that protects just half of the people who receive it is considered moderately effective, and one that covers more than 80 percent highly effective. Even a vaccine that only suppresses the levels of virus would deter its spread to others.
The experts said reinfection had occurred with other pathogens including influenza — but they emphasized that those cases were exceptions, and the new coronavirus was likely to be no different.
“I would say reinfection is possible, though not likely, and I’d think it would be rare,” Dr. Rasmussen said. “But even rare occurrences might seem alarmingly frequent when a huge number of people have been infected.”
...
Can You Get Covid-19 Again? It’s Very Unlikely, Experts Say (New York Times, 7/23/2020)
Reports of reinfection instead may be cases of drawn-out illness. A decline in antibodies is normal after a few weeks, and people are protected from the coronavirus in other ways.
Can You Get Covid-19 Again? It’s Very Unlikely, Experts Say
Reports of reinfection instead may be cases of drawn-out illness. A decline in antibodies is normal after a few weeks, and people are protected from the coronavirus in other ways.
By Apoorva Mandavilli
Published July 22, 2020 | Updated July 23, 2020, 3:33 a.m. ET
The anecdotes are alarming. A woman in Los Angeles seemed to recover from Covid-19, but weeks later took a turn for the worse and tested positive again. A New Jersey doctor claimed several patients healed from one bout only to become reinfected with the coronavirus. And another doctor said a second round of illness was a reality for some people, and was much more severe.
These recent accounts tap into people’s deepest anxieties that they are destined to succumb to Covid-19 over and over, feeling progressively sicker, and will never emerge from this nightmarish pandemic. And these stories fuel fears that we won’t be able to reach herd immunity — the ultimate destination where the virus can no longer find enough victims to pose a deadly threat.
But the anecdotes are just that — stories without evidence of reinfections, according to nearly a dozen experts who study viruses. “I haven’t heard of a case where it’s been truly unambiguously demonstrated,” said Marc Lipsitch, an epidemiologist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.
Other experts were even more reassuring. While little is definitively known about the coronavirus, just seven months into the pandemic, the new virus is behaving like most others, they said, lending credence to the belief that herd immunity can be achieved with a vaccine.
It may be possible for the coronavirus to strike the same person twice, but it’s highly unlikely that it would do so in such a short window or to make people sicker the second time, they said. What’s more likely is that some people have a drawn-out course of infection, with the virus taking a slow toll weeks to months after their initial exposure.
People infected with the coronavirus typically produce immune molecules called antibodies. Several teams have recently reported that the levels of these antibodies decline in two to three months, causing some consternation. But a drop in antibodies is perfectly normal after an acute infection subsides, said Dr. Michael Mina, an immunologist at Harvard University.
Many clinicians are “scratching their heads saying, ‘What an extraordinarily odd virus that it’s not leading to robust immunity,’ but they’re totally wrong,’” Dr. Mina said. “It doesn’t get more textbook than this.”
Antibodies are not the only form of protection against pathogens. The coronavirus also provokes a vigorous defense from immune cells that can kill the virus and quickly rouse reinforcements for future battles. Less is known about how long these so-called memory T cells persist — those that recognize other coronaviruses may linger for life — but they can buttress defenses against the new coronavirus.
“If those are maintained, and especially if they’re maintained within the lung and the respiratory tract, then I think they can do a pretty good job of stopping an infection from spreading,” said Akiko Iwasaki, an immunologist at Yale University.
Megan Kent, 37, a medical speech pathologist who lives just outside Boston, first tested positive for the virus on March 30, after her boyfriend became ill. She couldn’t smell or taste anything, she recalled, but otherwise felt fine. After a 14-day quarantine, she went back to work at Melrose Wakefield Hospital and also helped out at a nursing home.
On May 8, Ms. Kent suddenly felt ill. “I felt like a Mack truck hit me,” she said. She slept the whole weekend and went to the hospital on Monday, convinced she had mononucleosis. The next day she tested positive for the coronavirus — again. She was unwell for nearly a month, and has since learned she has antibodies.
“This time around was a hundred times worse,” she said. “Was I reinfected?”
There are other, more plausible explanations for what Ms. Kent experienced, experts said. “I’m not saying it can’t happen. But from what I’ve seen so far, that would be an uncommon phenomenon,” said Dr. Peter Hotez, the dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine.
Ms. Kent may not have fully recovered, even though she felt better, for example. The virus may have secreted itself into certain parts of the body — as the Ebola virus is known to do — and then resurfaced. She did not get tested between the two positives, but even if she had, faulty tests and low viral levels can produce a false negative.
Given these more likely scenarios, Dr. Mina had choice words for the physicians who caused the panic over reports of reinfections. “This is so bad, people have lost their minds,” he said. “It’s just sensationalist click bait.”
In the early weeks of the pandemic, some people in China, Japan and South Korea tested positive twice, sparking similar fears.
South Korea’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention investigated 285 of those cases, and found that several of the second positives came two months after the first, and in one case 82 days later. Nearly half of the people had symptoms at the second test. But the researchers were unable to grow live virus from any of the samples, and the infected people hadn’t spread the virus to others.
“It was pretty solid epidemiological and virological evidence that reinfection was not happening, at least in those people,” said Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at Columbia University in New York.
Most people who are exposed to the coronavirus make antibodies that can destroy the virus; the more severe the symptoms, the stronger the response. (A few people don’t produce the antibodies, but that’s true for any virus.) Worries about reinfection have been fueled by recent studies suggesting that these antibody levels plummet.
For example, a study published in June found that antibodies to one part of the virus fell to undetectable levels within three months in 40 percent of asymptomatic people. Last week, a study that has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal showed that neutralizing antibodies — the powerful subtype that can stop the virus from infecting cells — declined sharply within a month.
“It’s actually incredibly depressing,” said Michael Malim, a virologist at King’s College London. “It’s a huge drop.”
But other work suggests that the antibody levels decline — and then stabilize. In a study of nearly 20,000 people posted to the online server MedRxiv on July 17, the vast majority made plentiful antibodies, and half of those with low levels still had antibodies that could destroy the virus.
“None of this is really surprising from a biological point of view,” said Florian Krammer, an immunologist at the Icahn Mount Sinai School of Medicine who led that study.
Dr. Mina agreed. “This is a famous dynamic of how antibodies develop after infection: They go very, very high, and then they come back down," he said.
He elaborated: The first cells that secrete antibodies during an infection are called plasmablasts, which expand exponentially into a pool of millions. But the body can’t sustain those levels. Once the infection wanes, a small fraction of the cells enters the bone marrow and sets up shop to create long-term immunity memory, which can churn out antibodies when they’re needed again. The rest of the plasmablasts wither and die.
In children, each subsequent exposure to a virus — or to a vaccine — boosts immunity until, by adulthood, the antibody response is steady and strong.
What’s unusual in the current pandemic, Dr. Mina said, is to see how this dynamic plays out in adults, because they so rarely experience a virus for the first time.
Even after the first surge of immunity fades, there is likely to be some residual protection. And while antibodies have received all the attention because they are easier to study and detect, memory T cells and B cells are also powerful immune warriors in a fight against any pathogen.
A study published July 15, for example, looked at three different groups. In one, each of 36 people exposed to the new virus had T cells that recognize a protein that looks similar in all coronaviruses. In another, 23 people infected with the SARS virus in 2003 also had these T cells, as did 37 people in the third group who were never exposed to either pathogen.
“A level of pre-existing immunity against SARS-CoV2 appears to exist in the general population,” said Dr. Antonio Bertoletti, a virologist at Duke NUS Medical School in Singapore.
The immunity may have been stimulated by prior exposure to coronaviruses that cause common colds. These T cells may not thwart infection, but they would blunt the illness and may explain why some people with Covid-19 have mild to no symptoms. “I believe that cellular and antibody immunity will be equally important,” Dr. Bertoletti said.
Vaccine trials that closely track volunteers may deliver more information about the nature of immunity to the new coronavirus and the level needed to block reinfection. Research in monkeys offers hope: In a study of nine rhesus macaques, for example, exposure to the virus induced immunity that was strong enough to prevent a second infection.
Researchers are tracking infected monkeys to determine how long this protection lasts. “Durability studies by their nature take time,” said Dr. Dan Barouch, a virologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston who led the study.
Dr. Barouch and other experts rejected fears that herd immunity might never be reached.
“We achieve herd immunity all the time with less than perfect vaccines,” said Dr. Saad Omer, the director of the Yale Institute for Global Health. “It’s very rare in fact to have vaccines that are 100-percent effective.”
A vaccine that protects just half of the people who receive it is considered moderately effective, and one that covers more than 80 percent highly effective. Even a vaccine that only suppresses the levels of virus would deter its spread to others.
The experts said reinfection had occurred with other pathogens including influenza — but they emphasized that those cases were exceptions, and the new coronavirus was likely to be no different.
“I would say reinfection is possible, though not likely, and I’d think it would be rare,” Dr. Rasmussen said. “But even rare occurrences might seem alarmingly frequent when a huge number of people have been infected.”
Last edited by a moderator:
Jackstraw
Footballguy
Listened to a podcast the other day that talked about how the 1918 Spanish Flu had some interesting side effects. The flu didn't get as much media attention as it would have normally due to WWI going on. Germany surrendered and in the spring of 1919 Woodrow Wilson was in Paris negotiating a peace agreement. Wilson wanted "war without victory". This meant that they would not require reparations or other forms of punishment for Germany and the German people. The French Chancellor felt very differently about it as the French had suffered much more from the German occupation. The two leaders were hard at it when Wilson came down with the flu and spent ten days in bed with fever, deliriums etc. When he was better he was able to resume negotiations but his advisors said he was never the same after the flu. He was soft in negotiations and succumbed to the French Chancellor requiring crippling sanctions on Germany. These sanctions were the source of German resentment over the next fifteen years and laid the foundation for the Nazi's to be able to come to power, start WWII and lead to 80 million deaths. Had Wilson not got the flu and negotiated a better agreement, WWII may well have never happened.
Meanwhile......on the other side of the world, a young lawyer activist from India named Ghandi was traveling the country speaking to the crowds. He was in fact agitating for the Indian people to join with the British to fight in the war against the Germans. The British saw the Indian people as soft and compliant and Ghandi believed if they fought in the war the British might be more willing to open the way for Indian independence. Ghandi got the flu and was ravaged from August of 1918 into early January of 1919. He saw the infliction of sickness as karma punishing for some wrongdoings. He had a period of intense self introspection and totally rejected his stance on the war. It was there that his strategy of nonviolent resistance was born and he began speaking in those terms. The Indians who had suffered greatly from both the flu and the war were moved and his movement exploded eventually leading to India's independence.
So the flu pandemic in a round about way lead to the greatest war and the creation of non violent peaceful resistance that was used again and again throughout the 20th century.
I thought about this a long time in relation to whats going on today. The conclusion I drew was not that I could predict what was going to change as a result of this pandemic but that I feel absolutely certain that significant change will most likely occur be that good or bad. I see so many people clinging to the notion of returning to normal or not accepting that things have changed. I want to be the guy who identifies positive change and rolls downstream of it or that identifies negative change and steps out of its way.
Or I might have smoked a little too much pot.
Meanwhile......on the other side of the world, a young lawyer activist from India named Ghandi was traveling the country speaking to the crowds. He was in fact agitating for the Indian people to join with the British to fight in the war against the Germans. The British saw the Indian people as soft and compliant and Ghandi believed if they fought in the war the British might be more willing to open the way for Indian independence. Ghandi got the flu and was ravaged from August of 1918 into early January of 1919. He saw the infliction of sickness as karma punishing for some wrongdoings. He had a period of intense self introspection and totally rejected his stance on the war. It was there that his strategy of nonviolent resistance was born and he began speaking in those terms. The Indians who had suffered greatly from both the flu and the war were moved and his movement exploded eventually leading to India's independence.
So the flu pandemic in a round about way lead to the greatest war and the creation of non violent peaceful resistance that was used again and again throughout the 20th century.
I thought about this a long time in relation to whats going on today. The conclusion I drew was not that I could predict what was going to change as a result of this pandemic but that I feel absolutely certain that significant change will most likely occur be that good or bad. I see so many people clinging to the notion of returning to normal or not accepting that things have changed. I want to be the guy who identifies positive change and rolls downstream of it or that identifies negative change and steps out of its way.
Or I might have smoked a little too much pot.
shader
Footballguy
They were very low class jokes made by posters that were only here to troll.
Just this morning Florida reports a new record in deaths with 173. Such a shame, but totally predictable.
Last edited by a moderator:
Kilgore Trout
Footballguy
Positive cases started ramping up around June 19th. Deaths started to increase around July 7th. There are obviously a lot of factors in play, but we can reasonably assume that the death rate will continue to rise over the course of the next two to three weeks. The "good news" is the rate of increase isn't nearly as steep as when this first started, and that can be attributed to better treatment and a younger population of people that are contracting the virus, as has been discussed previously. Also, our positive daily cases seems to have plateaued for the time being. But it is really depressing to think about how this could have been avoided.
Doug B
Footballguy
beer 30
Footballguy
In a moment of profound wisdom I recalled a time in mid 80's when seat belt usage became mandatory. While there was some push back, it was pretty readily accepted. I got pulled over for something and one of the tickets was for not wearing a seat belt which carried a fine with it that could be waived if you went to a 2-3 hour safety class on Saturday. It's the last thing a 20 year old wants to do but I sat through it. Full class, young and old and guess what? After my re-education class, I didn't turn into an automaton. I actually grew up into a responsible human being (for the most part) and am a productive member of the greatest society in the world.
The dude I was going back & forth with was a year behind me in school but there was a big group of us that all hung out together. Hoping that resonated with him since he probably had to sit the same class I did. Don't really care though. You start talking Nazi's & Communists and you've lost me. It's a non-starter.
jplvr
Footballguy
Orlando doc I've been following on another message board with 10 central Florida hospitals says they're having less hospitalizations for Covid now and with Covid, and their ICU beds are on a downward trend. Conference call on Tuesday had them slightly up, but I just saw he got a memo yesterday afternoon. They never used any of their surge capacity, but they did have staffing concerns for a few days.
He doesn't have any hospitals in Miami.
There's another guy there who's a doc in Jacksonville. I know everyone expected them to blow up when they opened beaches, but they never had an issue.
Looks like Florida is on the backside of the surge caused by the riots to me.
He doesn't have any hospitals in Miami.
There's another guy there who's a doc in Jacksonville. I know everyone expected them to blow up when they opened beaches, but they never had an issue.
Looks like Florida is on the backside of the surge caused by the riots to me.
beer 30
Footballguy
The posters are still in time out would be my guess. There should be an influx beginning of next week if history proves out.
Listen bud, if you're going to drop some interesting info you have to provide a link to the podcast or at least mention the name. Protocol man, c'mon
beer 30
Footballguy
Wonder what the RNC is going to do to that. I know they are trying to push for more virtual but right now there is still going to be thousands there for it.
Same with Orlando really, they have opened up the parks, they are having trade shows, I'm curious to see what it looks like in a couple of weeks. Would be fantastic if the numbers hold and hospitalizations stay down
Jackstraw
Footballguy
It was Radiolab. July 17 edition. I like to bug out on stuff like that while I walk.The posters are still in time out would be my guess. There should be an influx beginning of next week if history proves out.
Listen bud, if you're going to drop some interesting info you have to provide a link to the podcast or at least mention the name. Protocol man, c'mon
shader
Footballguy
Florida hospitalizations do seem to have stabilized in the 400/day range, just like positive tests SEEM to have stabilized in the 10k range. As deaths continue to increase to what I'd expect would be a temporary peak over the next 1-2 weeks, (173 reported today), I'd imagine that this will slowly lighten the ICU load in Florida, for now.
Last edited by a moderator:
Kilgore Trout
Footballguy
Cases in New York have been steadily declining for the past couple months, and showed no increase after the "riots". If the protests were causing the surge, you would see increases everywhere. This is not the cause of the surge.
phunktrain
Footballguy
I think medcram had a video on this a few days ago. The general message was there were tests that were less accurate (only caught high levels of the virus, but that would be when folks are most infectious) that were 1-2 bucks a piece, if these were used every couple days to catch spreaders before they get out into population, that would drive the Rt down significantly. Need the FDA to be on board tho.
Video
Last edited by a moderator:
shader
Footballguy
Could have had an impact. NY was on the backside of their outbreak. FL was at the beginning of their outbreak. Two really different scenarios and states.
I think the bigger impact in Florida was the reopening of the state, but it's tough to prove anything without contact tracing and I think it's pointless to argue what exactly the causes were. People began getting together and interacting in many different ways. Beyond that, it's just political mudslinging disguised as non-political talk so the conversation can happen in this forum.
Last edited by a moderator:
themeanmachine
Footballguy
Agreed, I don't suspect the protests had a substantial impact on the surge. I think it was because large numbers of people in areas that hadn't been hard hit previously thought "cool, now we're mostly past this, let's go to the bar and eat in crowded indoor restaurants and shop without masks on and hang out with friends inside 'cause it's hot out here".
shadyridr
Footballguy
I think its as foolish to think that large gatherings of thousands of people did not cause an increase in cases just as its as foolish to think protests are the ONLY reason for an increase in cases.
Just look at Atlanta as an example. Their protests went on longer than most cities due to the second police shooting and burning of Wendy's.
Last edited by a moderator:
Personally, I questioned the timing shader stated as being so definitive and the rate deaths would increase. I never once joked or thought deaths of any kind were "funny".
jplvr
Footballguy
That could also be because so many people in NYC were previously infected. Unfortunately, until there is a vaccine for this thing, I think it just has to run it's course. As long as we don't lose people because of hospital issues, I don't know what else people think we were supposed to do. I'm hopeful Florida's stabilizing case numbers are further proof of my second point.
Grace Under Pressure
Footballguy
The lag time between new cases -> more transmission to older folks -> to hospitalizations -> to fatalities can be confusing. Add in the factor that the country was coming down in deaths at the time, and it made the charts look confusing to people. "Cases may be up, but deaths are down!" is what it would look like at a cursory level, which led people to believe the virus was weakening or other faulty conclusions. It's no one's fault. But the country needs to mitigate strongly again, through staying at home mostly, wearing masks, staying far apart, etc. Doctors have made advancements in treating patients, but it doesn't help them when we overload hospitals.
Battersbox
Footballguy
It could be simply that the protests/riots which took place in NYC happened amidst a population which was far more saturated with infections and recoveries than those of other places.
