Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
*** OFFICIAL *** COVID-19 CoronaVirus Thread. Fresh epidemic fears as child pneumonia cases surge in Europe after China outbreak. NOW in USA (10 Viewers)
- Thread starter Big League Chew
- Start date
- Status
Capella
Footballguy
Hey buddy thanks for asking. No fever, no nausea, we both just picked up an annoying cough on day 6 and 7. Kinda weird how it came that late, the first few days I was just tired and he had no indication of anything at all. Now we are coughing left and right but I guess if you told me that’s all we would get I would sign up for that.
Doug B
Footballguy
Yeah, as regulars in this thread know: COVID infections are pretty chaotic in term of effects. Hard to pinpoint a "normal course" for the disease.
jvdesigns2002
Footballguy
Dang—I somehow missed that Covid hit you and your family. Glad to see that you guys didn’t get hit super bad and that you seem on your way to recovery. I haven’t posted in this thread much lately but am continuing to evaluate the covid situation based on the trends I’m seeing in my own social circles (friends, customers, work affiliates and vendors, family..etc). Have definitely noticed an uptick in the number of people that I know that are battling covid the last week or two. One weird thing is that I have a family that are great customers that got Covid for a third time 10 days ago. The second time they got covid was literally maybe 7 weeks before that. This third infection was by far and away their worst. The entire family said the last 10 days have been hell for all of them. Definitely makes me think that there are probably a couple/few strains mutations that are decently in circulation right now. Sounds like maybe you guys were fortunate enough to get a milder one. Get well soon vibes to you and your fam.
Just found this article yesterday. Seems to explain a lot, the BA.5 variant is apparently causing a lot of breakthrough infections and the symptoms are nastier than previous Omicron variants.
https://news.yahoo.com/the-worst-version-of-covid-is-spreading-can-we-update-our-vaccines-in-time-131933423.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9sLmZhY2Vib29rLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAABfLb4G884DZXVdHyghIrk1jlUjo1Cdgxj4dwDmIBMc0Lly5EN0utUI5FujKA8KYZHaoojWABUrDgEanASV3tFgage0pewdKzbTWH7u4icKFbWb-FmxVil86NsLy5F0u5nMgA5w-E_4mujiWbG8x1M7tSC73CQXlEiAJu8nS7b9i
Sleestak
Footballguy
It had been 8 months since booster #1, so yesterday I went ahead and got #2. Moderna this time, since the priors were all Pfizer. Sore arm, no other issues.
Nathan R. Jessep's linked Eric Topol article prompted me to just go ahead and get the 2nd booster vice waiting into the fall in an attempt to get a BA.1-updated version. Thanks, Nate, appreciate some truth that I could handle.
Nathan R. Jessep's linked Eric Topol article prompted me to just go ahead and get the 2nd booster vice waiting into the fall in an attempt to get a BA.1-updated version. Thanks, Nate, appreciate some truth that I could handle.
Scoresman
Footballguy
I'm assuming the increased severity is nowhere near that of what Delta was though, hopefully... Seems to be just slightly more severe than BA.1 according to Portugal's worldometer data.
Doug B
Footballguy
I saw that Yahoo News article yesterday. The information in that article is legit, but I think the overall thrust of the article is too pessimistic. It reads like BA.5 is this new thing that's just going to upend everything once again and put us back to square one. In fact, BA.5 has been around a few months already and had not yet "helped" current detected case counts punch through the 115,000/day (7-day avg) level. IOW, if BA.5 was knocking us out that bad, we'd be detecting a spike-shaped surge right now. I guess nothing in the future is guaranteed ... but right now, BA.5 doesn't look like it's starting off a spike in the U.S.
I mean, they literally wrote "None of this will set the U.S. back to square one".
And I doubt there's an accurate way to measure, but it seems very likely that the ratio of unreported to reported case counts is higher than it's ever been. Not necessarily a bad thing as it relates to severe illness, hospitalizations, etc.
Agree that BA.5 isn't going to knock us back to square one, but it does sound like it and BA.4 have only begun to become the dominant strains in the past couple of weeks. When combined with the likelihood of reduced reporting of test results now due to all of the at home testing going on I wonder if we will ever see the kind of spikes we have seen in the past.
I've been out of the thread for a long time so I don't know if anyone has found a way to overcome the lack of testing and reporting of at home test results in the official numbers. The only reason I read the last couple of pages is because my wife and I both tested positive for the 1st time earlier this week and our experience sounds similar to what others have posted recently. I think in both of our cases the symptoms have been worse than expected, but neither of us came close to going to the hospital either. We did at home testing and I reported my result but didn't bother reporting my wife's result.
Nathan R. Jessep
Footballguy
This seems like an awesome discovery if their study holds up:
CAN TYLENOL IN WASTEWATER HELP TRACK COVID-19? --In a pilot project exploring ways to monitor COVID-19, scientists hunted for pharmaceuticals, such as Tylenol, and viral RNA at the same time in wastewater in Western New York.
---
At all four wastewater treatment plants included in the project, the research found that acetaminophen concentrations in wastewater spiked before other measures of COVID-19 in the community in early 2021, including concentrations of COVID-19 viral RNA in wastewater and the estimated number of confirmed COVID-19 cases.
...
“Our biggest finding is that there’s a huge increase in the concentration of acetaminophen, which is used in over-the-counter drugs, that predates the peak of viral RNA in wastewater and the peak in clinical detections in our area during the study period,” Aga says.
CAN TYLENOL IN WASTEWATER HELP TRACK COVID-19? --In a pilot project exploring ways to monitor COVID-19, scientists hunted for pharmaceuticals, such as Tylenol, and viral RNA at the same time in wastewater in Western New York.
---
At all four wastewater treatment plants included in the project, the research found that acetaminophen concentrations in wastewater spiked before other measures of COVID-19 in the community in early 2021, including concentrations of COVID-19 viral RNA in wastewater and the estimated number of confirmed COVID-19 cases.
...
“Our biggest finding is that there’s a huge increase in the concentration of acetaminophen, which is used in over-the-counter drugs, that predates the peak of viral RNA in wastewater and the peak in clinical detections in our area during the study period,” Aga says.
Doug B
Footballguy
I actually think that's a fantastic thing. What percentage of regular ol' cold-causing viral infections ever make it into a public database? A few, but a pretty darn small number. If COVID gets like that -- where out of 1,000,000 infections, 999,900 of them remain at or below "annoying, no-medical-intervention symptoms" and the remaining 100 are comprised of everything from "quick trip to urgent care" to "death", I'd say humanity has bested COVID -- even as some small number of individuals don't make it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Capella
Footballguy
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
It appears I’ve successfully made it through my COVID course without passing it to the rest of my family.
Back at work the last couple days and haven’t watch any news. Was there some new warning that came out today? Bosses for our major supermarket chain sent out word that all employees needed to wear masks starting tomorrow along with daily health screenings. Officially back to recommending masks for customers too. I thought it was odd timing unless there was some new developments.
Back at work the last couple days and haven’t watch any news. Was there some new warning that came out today? Bosses for our major supermarket chain sent out word that all employees needed to wear masks starting tomorrow along with daily health screenings. Officially back to recommending masks for customers too. I thought it was odd timing unless there was some new developments.
McBokonon
Footballguy
There’s no mandate but the CDC is recommending masks for indoors in AZ again. If I remember you’re in AZ, too.
Tested positive last night. I’m a first-timer. The symptoms are mild but they exist. Strained voice, slight cough with occasional congestion, sneezing a little. Get winded a little easier than usual. Overall not bad. 4X vaxxed even though I wasn’t technically eligible, but I was traveling to visit my elderly dad so I went and got it anyway. Glad I made it to see him first.
Starting a new job Tuesday, or at least I was. Already contacted them and they’re totally cool about it, of course. Sucks, was looking forward to starting.
culdeus
Footballguy
Had some funky symptoms. Did a morning rapid test for three days and two PCR negatives over that timeframe. Now feel fine.
I wonder if I had it and only popped symptoms after it wasn't detectable.
Boosted and had what I assume was omni in January.
Symptoms were dizziness and fatigue and upper chest congestion and minor sinus irritation. No cough.
I wonder if I had it and only popped symptoms after it wasn't detectable.
Boosted and had what I assume was omni in January.
Symptoms were dizziness and fatigue and upper chest congestion and minor sinus irritation. No cough.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah I’m in AZ. I guess I’m just surprised that they are following the guidelines and requiring masks again.
My personal bout with it seems to be ongoing. I’m still testing positive on Day 12. Thought I was over it but my cough has come back along with congestion and sore new GI symptoms. Fatigue and inability to focus have gotten worse but oddly enough didn’t bother me at work, so many I’m just lazy at home.
Doug B
Footballguy
Other respiratory infections can be this way sometimes, too -- you can plow through if you're focused on tasks but as soon as you get home and start winding down, you crash.
culdeus
Footballguy
ignatiusjreilly
Footballguy
That's my feeling, too. I make a point of not getting worked up over anyone else's mask choices, in either direction, but if we as a society shift to a view where, any time you might be contagious, you throw on a mask, that would probably be for the good. As I've said many times here, the fact that we "only" have tens of thousands of flu deaths per year shouldn't be seen as inevitable or acceptable. We don't need to turn society upside-down to get that number to zero, but there are lots of tweaks we could make that would be minimally disruptive and have a real impact
Doug B
Footballguy
Not sure if it's worth it to you ... but I wonder if you could ask your doctor (or a doctor, like someone local plugged into COVID research via USF Healthcare) if there is a way you can get a test that would distinguish "live" infectious virions and "dead" viral detritus.
FatMax
Member
About a month ago, my wife started feeling a little ill on a Wednesday, but didn't test positive until Saturday. So that can happen too.
Capella
Footballguy
Thanks. If it keeps carrying on I will look into this. I suspect I’ll clear in the next few days. The line today was a lot lighter than previous days, if that means anything.
Osaurus
Footballguy
I re-tested after 9 days and was clear, but there’s plenty of folks out there that it took much longer for (friend was 16 days)My son has tested negative. I am still hitting positives, now day 10— feel perfectly fine though
hagmania
Footballguy
Very good point. It turns out that I was suffering from a rather severe allergic reaction to poison ivy that was causing the gnarly cough.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ugh co-worker just tested positive right at 90 days from his last infection. Last time he was borderline on needing to go to the hospital. 60+ overweight, uncontrolled BP and diagnosed as diabetic after last infection (MD believes it’s connected). Doesn’t need the job, no idea why he continues to put himself at risk.
ignatiusjreilly
Footballguy
I don't totally disagree with this, but the key point I think they're missing is that, from the beginning, every individual decision should have been subject to a cost-benefit analysis: How dangerous is the situation and how disruptive is the intervention (plus, how effective will that intervention be). Obviously, the equation is very different if we're talking about a novel virus where no one has immunity vs. our current situation where many people are vaxxed and boosted, but the calculation at the heart of it remains the same.Maggot Brain said:
It does suck in our current situation that the collective effect of lots of individual decisions could be to put higher-risk people in danger, but I also don't think we can pretend it's an easy call to say you or I shouldn't eat at an indoor restaurant in order to protect, say, an elderly person who is vaxxed but not boosted from getting a bad case of Omicron.
Dezbelief
Footballguy
https://www.wfaa.com/amp/article/news/local/ut-southwestern-scientists-detect-covid-19-variant/287-abb9a048-d78c-414d-9fde-32cbf971fd83
A COVID-19 testing breakthrough: Dallas scientists can now detect variants within hours
The testing results at UT Southwestern’s Once Upon a Time Human Genomics Center have helped public health leaders track the spread of COVID-19 in North Texas.
Last year, pathologist Jeffrey SoRelle, M.D., and his colleagues developed CoVarScan, which is a rapid COVID-19 test that detects the signatures of eight hotspots on the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
After testing CoVarScan on more than 4,000 patient samples collected at UT Southwestern, the team reported that their test is as accurate as other methods used to diagnose COVID-19 and can successfully differentiate between all current variants of SARS-CoV-2.
“Using this test, we can determine very quickly what variants are in the community and if a new variant is emerging,” SoRelle said. “It also has implications for individual patients when we’re dealing with variants that respond differently to treatments.”
The testing results at UT Southwestern’s Once Upon a Time Human Genomics Center have helped public health leaders track the spread of COVID-19 in North Texas and make policy decisions based on the prevalence of variants, the medical center said. Doctors have also used the results to choose monoclonal antibodies that are more effective against certain strains infecting critically ill COVID-19 patients.
While a number of other tests for COVID-19 exist, they generally detect either a fragment of SARS-CoV-2 genetic material or small molecules found on the surface of the virus. They also don’t provide information to identify the variant.
Many researchers worry that these tests aren’t accurate in detecting some variants or may miss future strains. To determine which variant of COVID-19 a patient has, scientists typically use whole-genome sequencing, which is time-consuming and expensive and relies on equipment and analysis to spell out the entire RNA sequence contained in the viruses, UT Southwestern said.
In early 2021, SoRelle and his colleagues wanted to track how well current tests were detecting emerging variants of SARS-CoV-2. However, UT Southwestern said they realized sequencing a lot of specimens would not be timely or cost-effective, so they designed their own test. SoRelle's team worked in the McDermott Center Next Generation Sequencing Core, which is a part of the Eugene McDermott Center for Human Growth and Development directed by Helen Hobbs, M.D.
CoVarScan focuses on eight regions of SARS-CoV-2 that commonly differ between viral variants. It detects small mutations – where the sequence of RNA building blocks varies – and measures the length of repetitive genetic regions that tend to grow and shrink as the virus evolves.
The method relies on polymerase chain reaction, which is a technique common in most pathology labs, to copy and measure the RNA at these eight sites of interest.
To test how well CoVarScan works, SoRelle’s team ran the test on more than 4,000 COVID-19-positive nasal swab samples collected at UT Southwestern from April 2021 to February 2022. These tests were from patients both with and without symptoms.
The tests were validated with the gold-standard whole-genome sequencing, and the results were used by doctors to choose treatments for some critically ill COVID-19 patients, according to UT Southwestern.
Compared to whole-genome sequencing, CoVarScan had 96% sensitivity and 99% specificity. It identified and differentiated Delta, Mu, Lambda, and Omicron variants of COVID-19, including the BA.2 version of Omicron, which was once known as “stealth Omicron” because it did not show up on some tests designed to detect only the Omicron strain.
"A common critique of this kind of test is that it requires constant adjustment for new variants, but CoVarScan has not needed any adjustment in more than a year; it is still performing very well,” SoRelle said. “In the future, if we did need to adjust it, we could easily add as many as 20 or 30 additional hotspots to the test.”
SoRelle said he plans to continue developing CoVarScan as a commercial test and has a pending patent application based on his work. As the inventor of the genotyping PCR test for variants, UT Southwestern said SoRelle is entitled to income from its use.
Other UT Southwestern researchers who contributed to this study include Andrew Clark, Zhaohui Wang, Emily Ostman, Hui Zheng, Huiyu Yao, Brandi Cantarel, Mohammed Kanchwala, Chao Xing, Li Chen, Pei Irwin, Yan Xu, Dwight Oliver, Francesca Lee, Jeffrey Gagan, Laura Filkins, Alagarraju Muthukumar, Jason Park, and Ravi Sarode.
A COVID-19 testing breakthrough: Dallas scientists can now detect variants within hours
The testing results at UT Southwestern’s Once Upon a Time Human Genomics Center have helped public health leaders track the spread of COVID-19 in North Texas.
Last year, pathologist Jeffrey SoRelle, M.D., and his colleagues developed CoVarScan, which is a rapid COVID-19 test that detects the signatures of eight hotspots on the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
After testing CoVarScan on more than 4,000 patient samples collected at UT Southwestern, the team reported that their test is as accurate as other methods used to diagnose COVID-19 and can successfully differentiate between all current variants of SARS-CoV-2.
“Using this test, we can determine very quickly what variants are in the community and if a new variant is emerging,” SoRelle said. “It also has implications for individual patients when we’re dealing with variants that respond differently to treatments.”
The testing results at UT Southwestern’s Once Upon a Time Human Genomics Center have helped public health leaders track the spread of COVID-19 in North Texas and make policy decisions based on the prevalence of variants, the medical center said. Doctors have also used the results to choose monoclonal antibodies that are more effective against certain strains infecting critically ill COVID-19 patients.
While a number of other tests for COVID-19 exist, they generally detect either a fragment of SARS-CoV-2 genetic material or small molecules found on the surface of the virus. They also don’t provide information to identify the variant.
Many researchers worry that these tests aren’t accurate in detecting some variants or may miss future strains. To determine which variant of COVID-19 a patient has, scientists typically use whole-genome sequencing, which is time-consuming and expensive and relies on equipment and analysis to spell out the entire RNA sequence contained in the viruses, UT Southwestern said.
In early 2021, SoRelle and his colleagues wanted to track how well current tests were detecting emerging variants of SARS-CoV-2. However, UT Southwestern said they realized sequencing a lot of specimens would not be timely or cost-effective, so they designed their own test. SoRelle's team worked in the McDermott Center Next Generation Sequencing Core, which is a part of the Eugene McDermott Center for Human Growth and Development directed by Helen Hobbs, M.D.
CoVarScan focuses on eight regions of SARS-CoV-2 that commonly differ between viral variants. It detects small mutations – where the sequence of RNA building blocks varies – and measures the length of repetitive genetic regions that tend to grow and shrink as the virus evolves.
The method relies on polymerase chain reaction, which is a technique common in most pathology labs, to copy and measure the RNA at these eight sites of interest.
To test how well CoVarScan works, SoRelle’s team ran the test on more than 4,000 COVID-19-positive nasal swab samples collected at UT Southwestern from April 2021 to February 2022. These tests were from patients both with and without symptoms.
The tests were validated with the gold-standard whole-genome sequencing, and the results were used by doctors to choose treatments for some critically ill COVID-19 patients, according to UT Southwestern.
Compared to whole-genome sequencing, CoVarScan had 96% sensitivity and 99% specificity. It identified and differentiated Delta, Mu, Lambda, and Omicron variants of COVID-19, including the BA.2 version of Omicron, which was once known as “stealth Omicron” because it did not show up on some tests designed to detect only the Omicron strain.
"A common critique of this kind of test is that it requires constant adjustment for new variants, but CoVarScan has not needed any adjustment in more than a year; it is still performing very well,” SoRelle said. “In the future, if we did need to adjust it, we could easily add as many as 20 or 30 additional hotspots to the test.”
SoRelle said he plans to continue developing CoVarScan as a commercial test and has a pending patent application based on his work. As the inventor of the genotyping PCR test for variants, UT Southwestern said SoRelle is entitled to income from its use.
Other UT Southwestern researchers who contributed to this study include Andrew Clark, Zhaohui Wang, Emily Ostman, Hui Zheng, Huiyu Yao, Brandi Cantarel, Mohammed Kanchwala, Chao Xing, Li Chen, Pei Irwin, Yan Xu, Dwight Oliver, Francesca Lee, Jeffrey Gagan, Laura Filkins, Alagarraju Muthukumar, Jason Park, and Ravi Sarode.
Dezbelief
Footballguy
https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/pfizer-updated-covid-19-shots-omicron/507-516a3ce2-7827-4f6b-bd0a-61310c5a0451
Pfizer says tweaked COVID-19 shots boost omicron protection
FDA advisers will debate the data on Tuesday, as they grapple with whether to recommend a change to the vaccines’ recipes.
Author: LAURAN NEERGAARD (AP Medical Writer)
Published: 12:03 PM CDT June 25, 2022
Updated: 12:03 PM CDT June 25, 2022
Pfizer announced Saturday that tweaking its COVID-19 vaccine to better target the omicron variant is safe and works — just days before regulators debate whether to offer Americans updated booster shots this fall.
The vaccines currently used in the U.S. still offer strong protection against severe COVID-19 disease and death -- especially if people have gotten a booster dose. But those vaccines target the original coronavirus strain and their effectiveness against any infection dropped markedly when the super-contagious omicron mutant emerged.
Now with omicron’s even more transmissible relatives spreading widely, the Food and Drug Administration is considering ordering a recipe change for the vaccines made by both Pfizer and rival Moderna in hopes that modified boosters could better protect against another COVID-19 surge expected this fall and winter.
Pfizer and its partner BioNTech studied two different ways of updating their shots -- targeting just omicron, or a combination booster that adds omicron protection to the original vaccine. They also tested whether to keep today’s standard dosage -- 30 micrograms -- or to double the shots’ strength.
In a study of more than 1,200 middle-aged and older adults who’d already had three vaccine doses, Pfizer said both booster approaches spurred a substantial jump in omicron-fighting antibodies.
“Based on these data, we believe we have two very strong omicron-adapted candidates,” Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said in a statement.
Pfizer’s omicron-only booster sparked the strongest immune response against that variant.
But many experts say combination shots may be the best approach because they would retain the proven benefits of the original COVID-19 vaccine while adding new protection against omicron. And Pfizer said a month after people received its combo shot, they had a 9 to 11-fold increase in omicron-fighting antibodies. That’s more than 1.5 times better than another dose of the original vaccine.
And importantly, preliminary lab studies show the tweaked shots also produce antibodies capable of fighting omicron’s genetically distinct relatives named BA.4 and BA.5, although those levels weren’t nearly as high.
Moderna recently announced similar results from tests of its combination shot, what scientists call a “bivalent” vaccine.
The studies weren’t designed to track how well updated boosters prevented COVID-19 cases. Nor is it clear how long any added protection would last.
But the FDA’s scientific advisers will publicly debate the data on Tuesday, as they grapple with whether to recommend a change to the vaccines’ recipes -- ahead of similar decisions by other countries.
PinkydaPimp
Footballguy
yea my understanding is they will come in the fall. I believe the 3rd kids vaccine will include omicron.
Im about 8 months from my third shot but my antibodies are still pretty high as of the last check. I may wait for the omicron. Otherwise ill boost now and then whenever the omicron comes out.
ignatiusjreilly
Footballguy
Funny you mention that. I read this piece yesterday and had been meaning to post it.
We're getting an Omicron-optimized booster many months too late
I like Yglesias, but he's one of those armchair epidemiologists who seem a little too confident in their science-related proclamations (Nate Silver is even worse). But Eric Topol, who definitely does know what he's talking about, says pretty much the same thing.
ignatiusjreilly
Footballguy
Get Ready for the Forever Plague
I'm linking to this piece not because I agree with it, but because I know there was a lot of online chatter discussing it in the past few days. I don't feel qualified to judge its claims, nor do I know how credible the author, Andrew Nikiforuk, is on this topic, but I will say that overall it felt way too alarmist.
Would love to get the thoughts of some of the smart folks in this thread on his thesis that Covid is evolving in ways that make it ever-more dangerous
ETA: I wanted to find at least one blue checkmark providing a counter view, so here's a thread from Angela Rasmussen.
I'm linking to this piece not because I agree with it, but because I know there was a lot of online chatter discussing it in the past few days. I don't feel qualified to judge its claims, nor do I know how credible the author, Andrew Nikiforuk, is on this topic, but I will say that overall it felt way too alarmist.
Would love to get the thoughts of some of the smart folks in this thread on his thesis that Covid is evolving in ways that make it ever-more dangerous
ETA: I wanted to find at least one blue checkmark providing a counter view, so here's a thread from Angela Rasmussen.
Last edited by a moderator:
ignatiusjreilly
Footballguy
At what point do they stop testing you for virus particles and start testing you for human ones?day 14
Nathan R. Jessep
Footballguy
I'm not smart, but have read a lot (maybe all lol) of Covid related stuff for the last 2 years and, in particular the last couple of months, there seem to be quite a few epidems and docs who are thinking along these same lines base off of what they're seeing. Just the simple fact that this variant is more transmissible than the rest says a lot, considering we've had some pretty damn transmissible variants already. It flies in the face (again) of the hopeful yet false narrative of "viruses mutations only make them weaker in the long run." That has been disproven at least 3 times now with Covid. Couple that with the immune evasion properties they're seeing with this one, it's not a huge leap to think that another one can come along that may have the same (or worse) transmissibility and even more immune evasion properties, which of course is bad for all of us.
ignatiusjreilly
Footballguy
I think you're conflating different terms here. What we've heard from the start is that evolutionary pressure tends to make viruses more transmissible but less virulent. The theory is that a virus that's more transmissible will outcompete other variants, while one that's less virulent will be more likely to get passed on (since a dead person, or even a quarantined one, can't infect anyone else).
I do agree that hasn't really been born out with Covid, in part because asymptomatic transmission makes virulence less relevant. If you're infecting others before you get sick, it doesn't really matter what happens once you've been quarantined. Nonetheless, there does seem to be evidence that Omicron is less virulent.
Anyway, I agree with you that the doomsday scenario is not necessarily implausible, but it does sound like the author may have gotten a little over his skis in declaring we're already there. But again, those are just my initial, non-scientific impressions
Leeroy Jenkins
Footballguy
It is concerning that you can apparently get re-infected within 2-3 weeks.
I am supposed to attend a real conference for the first time since the pandemic in Utah in a couple of weeks. People coming from all over, but less than 100 attendees I think. I am a little worried and not sure about masking etc.
I am supposed to attend a real conference for the first time since the pandemic in Utah in a couple of weeks. People coming from all over, but less than 100 attendees I think. I am a little worried and not sure about masking etc.
Last edited by a moderator:
Terminalxylem
Footballguy
You joke, but it’s well known that bacteria and fungi coexist in and on our bodies in roughly equal numbers to our cells. And we’ve coevolved with viruses such that ~1/2 our genetic material derives from them.
So we’re 50% us, 50% them.
nirad3
Footballguy
Doug B
Footballguy
One thing that raises a red flag for me about this article is that it takes advantage of the scientist's ethic to hedge. To (virtually) never rule out anything. Both traditional and online media take similar advantage regularly ... but this guy is coming back for seconds and thirds.
Over and over, the author uses the "can" device. This means that he takes a one-in-a-jillion event, finds a quote from good authority that "yep, that one-in-a-jillion happened", and then treats that one-in-a-jillion event as the default condition because "it CAN happen!!!1".
Knowing what "can" happen is not enough. Show me the rates that something happens. If an author is hiding the rates behind their back, credibility goes right out the window.
BTW, this has nothing to do with bad sources or bad science or anything like that. Rock-solid and replicated (I'd say 'peer-reviewed', but that's been cheapened IMHO) research will turn up some one-in-a-jillion stuff. Pretty much every time. There will be outliers, there will be stuff that doesn't fit -- and that's totally expected and does not invalidate findings from the other 99.99999%. And it doesn't mean a lot of people are going to be laid low with Omicron BA.5 twice a month.
Doug B
Footballguy
Just starting her thread -- over the first several tweets, she's right on. Her Twitter thread is an essential companion to the "Forever Plague" article.
Doug B
Footballguy
Unfortunately guys like @Leeroy Jenkins fall for the doomsday crap hook, line, and sinker everytime. His entire family just got over a bout of mild covid and hes STILL worried about attending a conference thanks to that article.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
