The One Covid-19 Science and Medicine Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
And what's that, half the actual fatalities? 75%?

If we think the true number is anywhere near 200k right now, you'd have to believe that Russia is handling the epidemic four times more effectively than Germany, and 15 times more effectively than Belgium. You'd also need to believe that Brazil is handling the outbreak as well as Switzerland and Canada.

I'm not even going to mention India.

When the "official" numbers were at around 175000, IIRC, I had read that there was probably at least a 25,000 undercount, with much of it in places like Russia and Brazil, given comparisons to the previous year's death rates.

I've read a few reports now about people who breathe just fine but are getting low oxygen. Covid can collapse the lungs air sacs which for a while just makes people tired when they think they are getting better... until they get sudden organ failure.

If I understand the situation correctly, the short version there is that, apparently, CO2 is still getting removed from the blood, so the response of feeling like one can't breathe isn't triggered. And yeah, there's apparently a bit more buzz about blood oxygen testers in response.

It remains unclear why this is occurring — whether it is a sign of a second infection, a reactivation of the remaining virus in the body or the result of an inaccurate antibody test."

To poke at part of this, at least in some cases, it currently seems reasonably likely that it's reactivation - but in the ones that it's most likely to be such, there's not really any data about how infectious they might be and how dangerous it actually is at that point.

Why would the reagents get contaminated?

It's probably more prominently on their mind because that was apparently the original problem with the CDC testing debacle that caused that massive delay at the time when testing was needed the most.

This was also a problem in NY and other states. Sudden, large numbers of deaths in a nursing home, or people with symptoms that hadn't been tested that died at home weren't counted.

China had a similar problem and bumped their death total to account for probable COVID-19 deaths.

There's a reporting issue as well. The USA reports to WHO, for instance, are materially below counts from other sources. There is no national reporting requirement of COVID-19 deaths. States are sovereigns except for items specified in the US Constitution. In fact the CDC's totals specifically state that more complete info should be obtained from local sources.

A bit separately, I've heard a few anecdotal reports about hospitals, especially ones in red states, acting to artificially reduce the numbers reported. COVID symptoms? Test for other things, no attempt to even test for COVID even after the others turn up negative. Deaths? Limit access to the areas where people are dying and quiet, informal comments to others by the people who are allowed in about significantly more deaths than reported happening are harder to just dismiss, especially when they're also not testing for COVID. Less anecdotally, at least some states with Republican leadership (Florida in particular comes to mind) have been repeatedly criticized for how much of a blithering mess they've been when it comes to reporting numbers at the state level - a mess that is very plausibly intentional, not least because of how the, for example, Florida Republicans have a penchant for implementing intentionally made to fail measures for, frankly, evil and partisan gain reasons.
 
Last edited:
You cough at the wrong moment? The flask is not quite clean enough, you don't have triple distilled water, the ventilation is negative pressure rather than positive pressure. Some one opens the door and walks in to ask you a question. Having worked in a formulating lab making reagents there are dozens of ways, apart from simply getting the decimal point in the wrong place, you can screw up.
I have no idea what the distilled water would be for.:confused:

If the reagent is contaminated that would show up with control testing (ie testing using a control specimen) and the reagent batch recalled.

Maybe there are other test procedures. I put blood in an individual vial with developer. I put the test probe in an wait for capillary action to pull the fluid up the test strip to the indicators.

At no time is the test fluid open until I'm ready to put the drop of blood in it.

In a large lab they might contaminate one specimen of blood. That happened to a specimen I sent in. Fortunately I had sent in two tubes of blood for that patient and on retesting only one vial tested positive. That proved it happened in the lab. But in 30 years that has only happened once.
 
My father was a lab supervisor at a state infectious disease lab. He would regularly rant about things that could, and did, contaminate their work culturing and isolating bugs. But that was back 50 years ago. I'm sure things haven't changed that much. The most important thing is not just teaching rote protocols but getting people to actually understand deeply how contamination and transfer can so easily occur. Not easy.

We try to prevent such things with engineering controls, making it harder for human error to occur.
 
...
It's probably more prominently on their mind because that was apparently the original problem with the CDC testing debacle that caused that massive delay at the time when testing was needed the most.
But those tests were detected in production and not sent out, and the ones that had been sent out were recalled.

... A bit separately, I've heard a few anecdotal reports about hospitals, especially ones in red states, acting to artificially reduce the numbers reported. COVID symptoms? Test for other things, no attempt to even test for COVID even after the others turn up negative. Deaths? Limit access to the areas where people are dying and quiet, informal comments to others by the people who are allowed in about significantly more deaths than reported happening are harder to just dismiss, especially when they're also not testing for COVID. Less anecdotally, at least some states with Republican leadership (Florida in particular comes to mind) have been repeatedly criticized for how much of a blithering mess they've been when it comes to reporting numbers at the state level - a mess that is very plausibly intentional, not least because of how the, for example, Florida Republicans have a penchant for implementing intentionally made to fail measures for, frankly, evil and partisan gain reasons.
That happened in the LifeCareCenter here where the first outbreak occurred. The docs didn't test the patients for COVID because they didn't fit the criteria advised in the public health guideline. The staff were told not to worry.

Finally one MD said, screw the guidelines, this patient looks like COVID and the doc tested them. A serious outbreak well underway in the the nursing home was finally detected.

Years back, (the early 80s), we knew what HIV was and how it was spread but there was no test for it yet. The blood in the blood bank was not being tested yet and 'As the Band Played On' they were refusing to use related positives like past hepatitis B to screen the blood.

We had a patient that was recovering from heart surgery a few months earlier who had had a dozen (give or take) units of blood during the surgery. She presented now with evidence of immunosuppression, clearly an indication of HIV given she had the exposure potential.

Not only did the physicians ban any mention of HIV in the chart, we were supposed to keep quiet about it among ourselves. I didn't. I told my coworkers, one who told me she'd had a needle stick and was horrified the physicians told her the patient definitely did not have HIV.

Fortunately years later when a test was developed, my co-worker tested negative.

But the absurdity of pretending this could not be HIV because the doctor felt it would be politically damaging to someone: himself, the hospital, his practice? I don't know but he was in adamant denial of the obvious. It didn't change the patient's treatment at the time, but it did affect the safety of others who might have been exposed and could have gone on to infect someone else before they were warned.

And my coworker should have been offered regular follow-up blood tests, in particular CBCs to monitor her health. She was lucky it has turned out HIV is difficult to transmit with blood exposures in the healthcare setting. But it would have been a higher risk because a patient showing immunosuppression would have a high viral load: all things we know now we didn't know then.


Denial of reality rarely works for long.
 
You're just grasping at straws now to maintain the narrative that this is an extreme, extra deadly pandemic. There is absolutely no reason to assume that more people will get the disease. If you have evidence that this is the case, please provide it.

As for why I chose the lower number, no reason, either way, 0.1-0.2 is the commonly cited range for flu.
There has been massive intervention in social behaviour to manage the pandemic, or didn't you notice that?
 
Curiously, the earliest known death in the US was Feb 6 and recently discovered. The woman, in her 50's, was in good health and an auditor for a global semiconductor company in Santa Clara.

She was sick from the end of Jan and was working at home. She was recovering and working by video at home with a colleague that morning. She was discovered dead a few hours later.

Her family suspected it was COVID but it was months before it was confirmed.

Perhaps the first one was also a stroke. Lots of stories about people seeming to recover then suddenly dying.

But the disease only affects the old, so it must be something else.

Or, it affects so few people it doesn't matter anyway...

What is it like to be a doctor in Covid -19 season?

Another brilliant piece, thanks!
 
Today the W.H.O. reported there’s no evidence to date that having had Covid 19 renders one immune from reinfection.

If that turns out to be the case, it seems to have dire implications. It might mean that having had the disease does not result in effective antibodies in an individual.

So...

1) Does that mean that this goes on forever? With nothing to prevent multiple infections in individuals, it’s hard to see how it might ever die off.

2) Since a vaccine depends on an exposure to an inert form of a virus creating antibodies, rendering one resistant to said virus, does that mean a conventional vaccine for this Coronavirus is unlikely?

Yikes in either case!
 
In four U.S. state prisons, nearly 3,300 inmates test positive for coronavirus -- 96% without symptoms

One of the interesting things here, is that apparently everyone was in the specific window where they tested positive for the virus. This implies that the population was recently infected, had not been previously infected, and it spread almost completely within a pretty tight window.
This implies a shocking high R(effective) for that population. In 2 weeks we'll have super interesting data one way of the other on the CFR.

A prison seems very much like a cruise ship from a viral perspective. We know from the cruise ship data like the Diamond Princess that most people had no symptoms initially, but overtime most people became symptomatic. IIRC R was about 14. With the AC, flowing air between cells and communal di sign, i'm wondering if it might be higher in prisons.
 
Well, that airborne coronavirus carrying water droplets can meet and attach to airborne pollutants comes as no surprise. Hopefully, the danger involved is small, though.

I'd be quite happy to see that as a red herring. UV light unquestionably disables the virus is short time frames and even a cloudy day will render them harmless in minutes.

Little more than clickbait.

Today the W.H.O. reported there’s no evidence to date that having had Covid 19 renders one immune from reinfection.

As I already noted, there isn't any evidence it doesn't either. I can see why they said it, but until we know either way, it's pretty useless information.

If that turns out to be the case, it seems to have dire implications. It might mean that having had the disease does not result in effective antibodies in an individual.

It might mean lifelong immunity, too.

2) Since a vaccine depends on an exposure to an inert form of a virus creating antibodies, rendering one resistant to said virus, does that mean a conventional vaccine for this Coronavirus is unlikely?

Some proposed vaccines aren't based in inert viral particles.
 
Today the W.H.O. reported there’s no evidence to date that having had Covid 19 renders one immune from reinfection.

If that turns out to be the case, it seems to have dire implications. It might mean that having had the disease does not result in effective antibodies in an individual.

So...

1) Does that mean that this goes on forever? With nothing to prevent multiple infections in individuals, it’s hard to see how it might ever die off.

2) Since a vaccine depends on an exposure to an inert form of a virus creating antibodies, rendering one resistant to said virus, does that mean a conventional vaccine for this Coronavirus is unlikely?

Yikes in either case!

Caveat, first of all. No evidence to date of automatic post-sickness immunity is not the same thing as there being no immunity. Rather, things have seemed to be much messier than that for a while. I'm relatively poor at keeping track of time, but I think that a report from Wuhan over a month ago stated that at least 15% of people who had tested positive for COVID and then tested negative later tested positive again. Testing errors? Maybe, but certainly problematic. Later, there was another bit of news about maybe 30% of people who tested positive having very/extremely low antibody counts - usually younger, asymptomatic/very mild carriers, IIRC.

Naturally, if those 30% observed who ended up with virtually no antibodies even after apparently clearing the virus out of their system, there's likely not much stopping them from getting re-infected and makes the immunity information specifics and solutions dramatically more annoying to figure out and complex. With all that said, WHO doesn't really want to be letting false "common sense" lead to bad policy after all, hence that pointed announcement.
 
Last edited:
Today the W.H.O. reported there’s no evidence to date that having had Covid 19 renders one immune from reinfection.

If that turns out to be the case, it seems to have dire implications. It might mean that having had the disease does not result in effective antibodies in an individual.

So...

1) Does that mean that this goes on forever? With nothing to prevent multiple infections in individuals, it’s hard to see how it might ever die off.

2) Since a vaccine depends on an exposure to an inert form of a virus creating antibodies, rendering one resistant to said virus, does that mean a conventional vaccine for this Coronavirus is unlikely?

Yikes in either case!

Always look at the bright side. No more worries about your pension !
 
Caveat, first of all. No evidence to date of automatic post-sickness immunity is not the same thing as there being no immunity. Rather, things have seemed to be much messier than that for a while. I'm relatively poor at keeping track of time, but I think that a report from Wuhan over a month ago stated that at least 15% of people who had tested positive for COVID and then tested negative later tested positive again. Testing errors? Maybe, but certainly problematic. Later, there was another bit of news about maybe 30% of people who tested positive having very/extremely low antibody counts - usually younger, asymptomatic/very mild carriers, IIRC.

Naturally, if those 30% observed who ended up with virtually no antibodies even after apparently clearing the virus out of their system, there's likely not much stopping them from getting re-infected and makes the immunity information specifics and solutions dramatically more annoying to figure out and complex. With all that said, WHO doesn't really want to be letting false "common sense" lead to bad policy after all, hence that pointed announcement.
Viral shedding can go on a long time in other infections. That could be going on here.

Without evidence of a second infection with a different strain, "no evidence of lasting immunity" doesn't mean what people think it means.

And are these people relapsing more than once or so? Illness with symptoms lasting months?

It does have serious implications for infection control. That should have been the headlines.
 
Asymptomatic Shedding of Respiratory Virus among an Ambulatory Population across Seasons
We recruited participants from a New York City tourist attraction and administered nasal swabs, testing them for adenovirus, coronavirus, human metapneumovirus, rhinovirus, influenza virus, respiratory syncytial virus, and parainfluenza virus. At recruitment, participants completed surveys on demographics and symptomology. Analysis of these data indicated that over 6% of participants tested positive for shedding of respiratory virus. While participants who tested positive were more likely to report symptoms than those who did not, over half of participants who tested positive were asymptomatic.

Long-Term Shedding of Influenza Virus, Parainfluenza Virus, Respiratory Syncytial Virus and Nosocomial Epidemiology in Patients with Hematological Disorders
Viral shedding in SARS 1 was at least 21 days according to a graph in the paper.


Covid-19 Research Shows That Viral Shedding Duration By Infected SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus Patients Can Be Between 8 to 37 Days
The research found that the median duration of viral shedding was 20 days in survivors, but the virus was detectable until death in nonsurvivors. The longest observed duration of viral shedding in survivors was 37 days, and the shortest was eight days....

Professor Cao says that median duration of 20 days completely overturns previous assumptions on the detoxification time for acute respiratory virus infection. Longer viral shedding also means longer treatment and quarantine times.


Asymptomatic Summertime Shedding of Respiratory Viruses
Depending on symptomatologic definition, 57.7%–93.3% of positive samples were asymptomatic. These findings indicate that significant levels of asymptomatic respiratory viral shedding exist during summer among the ambulatory adult population.


I'd have to go digging further to find long term viral shedding of specific viruses. I think this should be enough for people to get picture. The story should be about implications for infection control, it's premature to be discussing the threat of a vaccine not working.
 
Last edited:
This paper makes some interesting observations related to antibody testing. The IgG antibody only became detectable 10 days after onset of symptoms, so any antibody based test may not be useful for diagnosing infection early. Thirty percent of their recovered patients only had low levels of antibodies detectable which suggests that antibody tests may not be that reliable for testing who has had the infection. Interestingly older people developed higher antibody levels. It is unclear whether those with low antibody levels are susceptible to re-infection. In addition to antibodies (humoral immunity), cell mediated immunity is important in response to viral infections, so having high antibody levels does not mean your immune response to infection is better than those with low antibody levels.
Indeed given that older people have more severe disease, and also have higher antibody levels it may be a marker of a less effective immune response.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.30.20047365v2.full.pdf
 
It appears "reinfection" technically means first suffering symptoms and/or testing positive, and then subsequently recovering from any symptoms and testing negative, and then subsequently testing positive again.

I think to most people (that is, not epidemiologists), reinfection is only a matter of concern if it also means being able to spread the disease again, and/or if it also means the possibility of further illness.

I assume if anyone had been documented to have died of a reinfection so far, we'd all know about it.
 
What is it like to be a doctor in Covid -19 season? I came in to work today at 8AM to get a handover of patients from the night registrar (fellow). One of our colleagues a thirty something fellow had been admitted overnight with severe pneumonia, tests awaited but almost certainly covid-19. The ward I am working on used to be a burns unit, but has been taken over to be a high dependency unit for patients with Covid-19. Part of the ward is now a clean area, where we keep the notes and all the kit we need. After getting the hand over from the night registrar, and reviewing the bloods and observations We (me and the consultant) suit up in PPE. Gowns, gloves, visors, and masks. The latter are the most critical given Covid-19 is airborne, we pinch the mask tight over our nose and pull it well down on our chin. If the visor fogs up you clearly don't have your mask tight.

The entrance to the clinical area is through an airlock. heavy plastic sheeting with a zip down the middle has been installed. For those familiar with diving the procedure is familiar, you check your buddy (in this case my boss), to make sure our PPE is on properly, then we unzip the outer plastic sheets, turn round and zip it up again. A newly installed A/C unit keeps the pressure in the air lock positive. We unzip the inner door and go in to the clinical area. All the patients on this ward have severe lung disease and are on assisted ventilation. Half way between a normal ward and ICU. They are awake and receiving some form of assisted ventilation. This is classified as high risk aerosol generating, the machines that we use potentially produce a spray of infected material so we need to wear high level protection.

Most of our patients are receiving CPAP therapy, we have repurposed machines designed to treat sleep apnoea to treat patients with severe viral pneumonia. Every day we learn how to look after the patients a bit better and the guidelines change. The CPAP machines provide what is called pressure support, air is blown in at a higher pressure than room air, by a tight fitting mask, we attach oxygen to the mask so that while the fan from the sleep apnoea machine provides the pressure most of what the patient breathes in is oxygen. all of this is us just winging it, as hundreds of others are doing round the world. The equipment is designed for this use nor certified. One of the consultants has been trying different machines and circuits on himself. Some machines burn out after a few hours because they are not designed to work for hours on end, others can't cope with the rapid breathing that happens in pneumonia, but we now have a set up that works.

So we round on our patients. Nothing comes out of the infected zone(except the staff), so we make notes on the computer which we will later transcribe onto paper (in case the computer system crashes we keep a paper record for in-patients). The first patient is critically dependant on pressure support and this is day three, he can't come off for long enough to eat so we need to pass a feeding tube to ensure nutrition is maintained. This involves a change of mask as the mask currently being used is not compatible with a feeding tube. The physiologists (respiratory therapists) who used to look after the sleep apnoea service and home ventilation service are now coming in every day including weekends to help troubleshoot issues with mask fitting and ventilators, essential because the nurses having to look after these patients have had no experience with this equipment before now. The physiotherapists are in to try and optimise breathing, a critical issue in covid-19 since a big problem appears to be collapse of areas of the lung, and optimising 'lung recruitment' is essential to survival we have discovered.

The next patient's oxygen levels drop hugely just with the effort of sitting up so we can listen to his chest. The oxygen levels need turning up to the maximum we can deliver. The ICU team have seen him and will take him for mechanical ventilation if needed, but if we can keep him his chance of living is 70%, if he needs to go to ICU his chance of dying is 70%.

The next patient is a success a thirty year old who is off supported ventilation, we will keep him one more day and if he remains well then to the general ward.

For each patient we visit we put a second pair of gloves and an apron on so we don't transfer any infection between patients. one patient sent here turns out to have had flu pneumonia, we don't want them to catch covid, and we don't want to spread flu to people critically ill with covid-19.

the there is the blood round, we try and minimise people exposed, so my consultant goes out of the ward prints off the blood forms and labels the blood bottles, then leaves thenm in the air lock. Once the outer door is zipped up. I collect the pre labelled blood bottles and take the bloods. These are then bagged, and left in the air lock, my boss, dressed up in PPE then enters the air lock 'double bags' the samples in clean bags with the request forms and brings them out changes out of PPE and sends the samples to the labs. Even such a routine process as taking a blood test from a patient is now hugely complex and uses up multiple sets of PPE.

Unlike the nurses who have to remain in the high risk area in PPE (hot and sweaty, not in a good way) for an entire shift, having rounded, done the bloods and written up the notes I can leave and have a team coffee (at a safe social distance). We meet up more than normal, but in a rapidly changing situation this is important, the gossip is all about what we have learned about this illness, a better way to wean off ventilatory support, what trials are ongoing, and changes in our rotas.

I take the chance of skyping my partner mid day, she is shielding due to taking immunosuppressive therapy for colitis , and I am working in a high risk area for infection, so this is the closest we'll get for months.

there are referrals from the ED (Emergency Department) about patients with bad breathing that might have Covid-19 and need assisted ventilation, neither seem likely to have Covid-19 and both have complex ling disease that need specialist treatment. The problem is that it is all too easy to label anything as covid-19 and not think about things in the same way as one would six months ago. However, the truth is anyone with any problem could be carrying the virus at the moment and we need to do our best not to put any other patients at risk and not to put any staff at risk. Our hospital is an old institution, most of the wars our open ward and we have relatively few single rooms, so we are constantly having to think about who can go to which bed.

I can't claim that at the moment we are really busy, we have empty beds, people are avoiding coming into hospital. Everyone is having to learn new skills, things are constantly changing and for some people this can be immensely upsetting. But everything now takes much longer, takes more people and has to be done with scrupulous care not to endanger anyone else.

Thanks for your report from the front lines, Planigale. Thank you and the thousands around the World like you for your dedication and efforts.

I hope we all come out of this at the end and there is a return to some degree of normalcy.
 
url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7107397/]Asymptomatic Summertime Shedding of Respiratory Viruses[/url]

A couple of things in this article caught my attention:
1) that women were significantly more likely to report symptoms than were men;
2) that the highest percentage of people found to be infected with a virus who were classified as asymptomatic was when symptomatic was defined as having at least a mild fever and either at least a mild sore throat or at least a mild cough.
This could imply that if the classification of someone infected with an upper respiratory virus as asymptomatic is based on a self-assessment then the number of asymptomatic infected people will be significantly over-estimated. Northwell Hospitals reported that 70% of their admissions of COVID-19 patients did not have a fever when admitted. This leads to the possibility that most people infected with SARS-CoV-2 will not run a fever, so that checking temperatures will not be an accurate way of determining who has a likelihood of being infected.
 
Last edited:
All the deniers are sharing this one like crazy. Anyone have a breakdown?

https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/...Q3c8wDkKyxFX9v11xhv_hoW2SlkE6nZ7bsP9EXApqFkOQ

The first obvious error is extrapolating the percentage of people tested for C19 v the number of positives in NY. From that they go on to say 39% of NY state has C19. Reporters interviewing them tried to question the validity but were just brushed aside.

The flaw is that COVID tests are limited and so almost all people tested for COVID are those with symptoms. Thus extrapolating this to 39% of the state is infected is disingenuous. This starts about min 7 into the video. No idea if their discussion gets better or worse after that but it's a pretty bad start. Hard to believe these doctors don't know this.

The 2 people come across as quite reasonable. They state they are just basing their info on what the science shows. Many people will likely accept their conclusions.
 
Thanks. Really interesting link.


Ahem, from an article linked in that article.
The theme of the 2017 article was that Donald Trump is hated above all because he was seen as a great threat to globalists’ plans to implement their anti-God, anti-family and anti-life New World Order (NWO) under President Clinton. The article was more accurate than I could have ever imagined.

The globalists have since done everything possible, with the full cooperation of their vicious allies in the fake news mainstream media, to try to convince the public that Trump is an evil, incompetent and corrupt man who has to be removed from the U.S. presidency. They need that to happen in order to carry on plans to permanently change America, destroy the capitalist system and replace it with a new globalist-controlled economy and radically changed world.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/...s-battering-ram-to-destroy-remake-world-order
 
All the deniers are sharing this one like crazy. Anyone have a breakdown?

https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/...Q3c8wDkKyxFX9v11xhv_hoW2SlkE6nZ7bsP9EXApqFkOQ

They seem to say we should cloister the high risk individuals while allowing the rest of us to go about our lives.I'm good with that.

But I don't think we have identified the risks yet, except for age. Hypertension is more common in old folks in general than in covid victims, 72% to 56%. Diabetes, obesity, seem likewise or nearly the same. So I think the state high risk factors are wrong. I'm suspecting it's general cardio-pulmonary health. Or some kind of immune system generality that we don't often measure. CRP level like thing? Histo-compatability? Darnit, what was the stuff in the buffy coat they would check before donating serum to my brother in chemo?

So I agree with them. And like the stock market being a Ponzi scheme with no Ponzi, Pandemic Porn is good for the Medico-Politico-Complex. Up to the point where it is not so good for the economy. Like voting to go to war where in you know some of your countrymen will die...
 
The first obvious error is extrapolating the percentage of people tested for C19 v the number of positives in NY. From that they go on to say 39% of NY state has C19. Reporters interviewing them tried to question the validity but were just brushed aside.

The flaw is that COVID tests are limited and so almost all people tested for COVID are those with symptoms. Thus extrapolating this to 39% of the state is infected is disingenuous. This starts about min 7 into the video. No idea if their discussion gets better or worse after that but it's a pretty bad start. Hard to believe these doctors don't know this.

I thought about the possibility of testing bias as well. Do you know the part in bold is true, or did you just surmise it because COVID tests are limited?

ETA: It seems like the part in bold is very unlikely to be true, although it would have been nice to hear one of the doctors in the video confirm it. the reason i say this, is that i currently only see ~280K cases of COVID in NY state and the doctors said the testing was of ~650K people in NY state.
 
Last edited:
All the deniers are sharing this one like crazy. Anyone have a breakdown?

https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/...Q3c8wDkKyxFX9v11xhv_hoW2SlkE6nZ7bsP9EXApqFkOQ

Got as far as the third paragraph:

I have constantly felt, from the beginning of this pandemic, that there are many things that do not add up about the unprecedented and devastating measures that have been put in place to try to stop this novel flu. They were all based on trying to prevent the high numbers of model-estimated deaths that have clearly all proven to be dramatically wrong.

They have? When? How?

Surely they can't be stupid enough to think that, because the lockdown is working as planned, that somehow means the model was wrong?
 
It's an allergy to the Covid "pollen".

Coincidentally, I turned allergic to ripe Jalapenos this past week. I had made a Covid mask out of a kitchen towel. I had wrapped some Jalapenos in that towel to ripen to red Chipotles. First breath through the mask and I was hacking, nose running, eyes watering..... I figured it was house dust. Then my package of dried Chipotles got here and I ran some though the blender to make chili flakes. I got a whiff, hacking, watering.... OK, allergy to ripe peppers.

Yeah, duh, Mr. Obvious. Allergies are a histamine over reaction to what the body thinks is an infectious attack. But like my Chipotle problem has cross reactivity that explains my hay fever (Mugwort, really, it's not a Harry Potter thing). Perhaps a cross reactive thing could be a test for Covid susceptibility "allergy". So, what else attaches to the ACE2 receptor ? Viral procreation is not the problem, as shown by the assymptomatic serology tests. The problem may be a rare allergic reaction it triggers? Old people have been exposed to more possible triggers, what are old folks more likely allergic to? I'm 67 years old, hay fever only the last couple years...
 
Last edited:
Got as far as the third paragraph:



They have? When? How?

Surely they can't be stupid enough to think that, because the lockdown is working as planned, that somehow means the model was wrong?

Got as far as the third paragraph:



They have? When? How?

Surely they can't be stupid enough to think that, because the lockdown is working as planned, that somehow means the model was wrong?

I think what pipelineaudio was commenting on, and what has been making the rounds on the Internet is the two videos linked in the article, not the article itself. The article is just one of many sharing the videos with his or her (somewhat nutty) commentary.

Also, as far as predictions and models that have been wrong, there are plenty of those to go around.
 
I don't understand how all these people are able to just handwave away new york.

Also, what's a high risk person?

We see SUPER healthy seeming, young people getting wiped out by this thing, not only deaths but living with crippling complications
 
All the deniers are sharing this one like crazy. Anyone have a breakdown?

https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/...Q3c8wDkKyxFX9v11xhv_hoW2SlkE6nZ7bsP9EXApqFkOQ
Does not belong here, in the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology board.

If either of the doctors (or both) have written up their research results and posted the document online (and not behind a paywall), let’s all read it and discuss it. Otherwise, how does this differ from millions of other YT videos? I mean, there are some very slick YT videos (far classier) which make a case that the world is flat, that the Big Bang never happened, that humans fought velociraptors, ...
 
Does not belong here, in the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology board.

If either of the doctors (or both) have written up their research results and posted the document online (and not behind a paywall), let’s all read it and discuss it. Otherwise, how does this differ from millions of other YT videos? I mean, there are some very slick YT videos (far classier) which make a case that the world is flat, that the Big Bang never happened, that humans fought velociraptors, ...

Oh, c'mon. It's two doctors working on or near the front lines of the COVID pandemic discussing their experiences and data they've collected. If you don't want to watch and engage with the videos, that's fine.
 
Got as far as the third paragraph:



They have? When? How?

Surely they can't be stupid enough to think that, because the lockdown is working as planned, that somehow means the model was wrong?

First there has to be a million dead in USA, only then will they agree that the pandemic is dangerous. Then you can have a lockdown in a few states, so that they can see that it's working. Only then will they agree that lockdowns are a good idea.

I've been reading about the 1918 pandemic lately. There are lots of good articles. You know what? The idiot positions then were exactly the same as they are now. Protests against lockdown, about having to wear facemasks, about how bad it was for the economy. States were releasing their lockdowns way too early. Truly, history repeats itself!
 
I thought about the possibility of testing bias as well. Do you know the part in bold is true, or did you just surmise it because COVID tests are limited?

ETA: It seems like the part in bold is very unlikely to be true, although it would have been nice to hear one of the doctors in the video confirm it. the reason i say this, is that i currently only see ~280K cases of COVID in NY state and the doctors said the testing was of ~650K people in NY state.

It's true. Almost all people tested are those with symptoms. Because of PCR test shortages, they haven't even, until recently, tested people highly likely to be exposed or even people that had died. Nursing homes for instance. And only recently have they extended testing to health care workers that were asymptomatic. CDC guidance was initially to only test those recently in Wuhan. Then they extended it to people with symptoms and they have started testing asymptomatic health care workers in some cases.

The problem is that COVID-19 symptoms are pretty much the same as colds and flu. So the large majority of the ~650k people tested were not asymptomatic.

The serologic survey was conducted without regard to whether people showed symptoms or not and it's 14% of NY's population would be a better estimate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom