Continuation The One Covid-19 Science and Medicine Thread Part 2

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by lomiller

I find that most of the people who think pandemic related restrictions are perfectly fine with police beating and potentially killing people for not immediately obeying whatever order the police choose to give them. This makes me doubt there is any real concern form freedom involved in the objections we see to these restrictions.

Good point.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Question: Assume that you get the first FDA-approved vaccine available to you. If another vaccine is released later that may be better for some reason, is there any medical reason why you can't get the second one?

Good question, but I'm going to presume not unless evidence to the contrary turns up.

You'll just be doubly susceptible to the Gates/Soros mind control.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

Thanks.. We are overdue for a Trump reference..


Are you saying that the failure of the healthcare system and the political engine ( i.e. Trump ) is not responsible for the
extent of the pandemic?

No I’m not. I’m talking about Trump dismissing the fact that 250,000 in the US have died from the virus. A denial you are echoing.

[The Atheist]

This has been doing the rounds for a couple of days: Covid antibodies found in blood taken in September 2019.

I believe the idea that Covid was gestating unseen in the population since September last year is nonsense, and the Science response suggests that false positives may be the issue.

The thought occurred to me that maybe there's a very similar coronavirus which has produced the false positives. This might also explain why some people seem to have the ability to be infected and have no symptoms while others die.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Good question, but I'm going to presume not unless evidence to the contrary turns up.

You'll just be doubly susceptible to the Gates/Soros mind control.

I'll be sure to insist on the "no microchip" version.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by lomiller

I addressed the part where I had issues/questions:



You provided no explanation of why we should “take the people with underlying health issues out of the mix", so I asked you if you were trying to imply that it wasn’t as important if these people died. You have had every opportunity to provide an alterative explanation of why we should ignore these deaths but you refuse to do so.

I did not suggest taking the people out of the mix, I clearly ( in my mind ) suggested taking the numbers out of the mix. The point being, if you address the comorbidities by treatment and prevention, you affect the outcome, and the reduce the number of deaths.

Apparently, I wasn't clear, but accusing me of advocating death panels and involuntary euthanasia, is ingenuous at best.

[Capsid]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Question: Assume that you get the first FDA-approved vaccine available to you. If another vaccine is released later that may be better for some reason, is there any medical reason why you can't get the second one?

Define better. The clinical trials show that the vaccine works. Subsequent vaccines are usually licensed on evidence that they are non- inferior.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lplus]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

This has been doing the rounds for a couple of days: Covid antibodies found in blood taken in September 2019.

I believe the idea that Covid was gestating unseen in the population since September last year is nonsense, and the Science response suggests that false positives may be the issue.

The thought occurred to me that maybe there's a very similar coronavirus which has produced the false positives. This might also explain why some people seem to have the ability to be infected and have no symptoms while others die.

May be relevant - SARS covid19 rective T cells found in persons without previous contact with SARS covid 19 - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2550-z

and here - https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2...b-global-en-GB

[Dr.Sid]

Originally Posted by Lplus

May be relevant - SARS covid19 rective T cells found in persons without previous contact with SARS covid 19 - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2550-z

and here - https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2...b-global-en-GB

There is no such thing as SARS covid 19. There is a virus named SARS-CoV-2 and disease named COVID-19

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

No one is padding death certificates to make COVID look worse or to get more money from Medicare. It a Trump et al ruse, an excuse, looks good on paper but not in real life.

I wouldn't say that it has never happened, but I would deny that it happens routinely, as is being suggested. I'm sure someone will be able to cherry-pick an example or two, but to suggest that it is widespread is disingenuous.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Capsid

Define better. The clinical trials show that the vaccine works. Subsequent vaccines are usually licensed on evidence that they are non- inferior.

I dunno. Longer lasting immunity, more effective in some specific risk groups, whatever. People smarter than I am are contending that the first vaccine may not necessarily be the "best" vaccine for all people and circumstances.

[Capsid]

Originally Posted by Bob001

I dunno. Longer lasting immunity, more effective in some specific risk groups, whatever. People smarter than I am are contending that the first vaccine may not necessarily be the "best" vaccine for all people and circumstances.

Have you got a link to that? Context would help.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Dr.Sid]

Different vaccines will have different prices, if nothing else. But RNA vaccine vs. adenovirus vaccine will differ in almost everything.

[arthwollipot]

Some pretty good information here about South Australia's 6-day "circuit breaker" lockdown:

South Australia's Covid lockdown explained: why six days and isn't 36 cases low?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by lionking

No I’m not. I’m talking about Trump dismissing the fact that 250,000 in the US have died from the virus. A denial you are echoing.

Show me the echo..

You are either confusing me with someone else or you are lying.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Some pretty good information here about South Australia's 6-day "circuit breaker" lockdown:

South Australia's Covid lockdown explained: why six days and isn't 36 cases low?

Looks like they've taken a leaf straight out of NZ's playbook.

Smart move!

[Modified]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Good question, but I'm going to presume not unless evidence to the contrary turns up.

You'll just be doubly susceptible to the Gates/Soros mind control.

I'll get the vaccine 100 times, just so Bill Gates and the Illuminati will wonder why 100 people are living in a 3/2 suburban house.

[Blue Mountain]

Originally Posted by No Other

What you are proposing is to establish restrictions on an assumption that people have this disease unless they offer proof of NOT having it or if they are wearing a face mask... then they are good. Even though the wearing of a face mask has not proven to be 100% or even in the high double digit percentage effective. In short, you demand that people conform to something that never had a baseline established with the lead argument for doing that "something" is because it is better than nothing? Does that sum up your position?

Perfect is the enemy of good. In the absence of a vaccine, face masks and social distancing are currently the two best weapons in our arsenal against this pandemic.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Capsid

Have you got a link to that? Context would help.

Pure speculation.There are questions about how long immunity will last, whether it will reduce transmission, etc. But the experts I'm seeing are saying "get the first vaccine you can."
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...976-0/fulltext [from before the announcement of the two vaccines]

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

Why are you, The Atheist, Ginger and Ramjets implying that this is my point?

At no point did I say any such thing.

My point is that people trying to downplay the threat started the meme that cases were being over-counted. It's bull.

It is frequently implied that one) young healthy people don't die from this. Yes they do and mortality is not the only thing this virus causes. There is a serious risk of long term morbidity.

And two) it is frequently implied that for political reasons people dying of any number of things are being falsely counted as COVID deaths. That is false.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

Somewhat like the responses I am getting..

What are your thoughts on co-morbidity and covid 19, and the possible need for more self restriction by those most vulnerable?

The problem with that is again, twofold.

1)That's a hell of a lot of people.

2)Other people in those households then infect the at-risk person. Isolating all those people with co-morbidities is not the least bit practical.

People imagine this is a solution, then they don't have to sacrifice anything. It's not feasible!

There's another aspect, if you do this impractical thing, you're also going to overflow all the hospitals.

[Blue Mountain]

Originally Posted by No Other

Your suggestion(s) should be aimed at you and others who are scared of Covid-19. You act as if a healthy person is a menace. I don't have Covid-19, therefore I don't need to have the restrictions. I don't care what you think as long as it does not infringe on my rights as I am not imposing sanctions on you.

Do you know nothing about this disease? One of its most insidious characteristics is that apparently healthy people can be infectious and spreading it for over a week before falling ill. In the midst of a pandemic it's safer to assume a person out in public is infectious unless proven otherwise.

Pretty much everything you've posted so far indicates you simply don't care about your fellow human being; it's all about you and your rights. News flash: human are social animals. We're not lone independent creatures like cougars and crickets; we're much more akin to wolves and ants. We gather together in tribes, villages, and cities. We love socialising at parties and in bars. What you do can affect others around you.

"Your right to swing your arms ends where my nose begins." By extension, your "right" no to wear a mask ends where other people's health and lives are involved. If you're unwilling to acknowledge that, then the big bad government will force you by various measures to do so.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

Yes.

But you see, most people will only get mild symptoms and recover, so they can justify asserting that 'draconian' measures taken to prevent infection cause more harm than good. Or can they?

Covid 19 coronavirus: Why South Australia locked down - New terrifying virus strain revealedThe shorter the incubation period, the more rapidly it can spread and the faster it can mutate. Shorter incubation also means it can mutate to an even more deadly form and still prosper.

We have been lucky so far. But the more this virus spreads and the more people become infected, the more mutations can occur. This virus is adapting faster than our inadequate response.

"First it came for the old, the weak, the comorbiditied, and I did not speak out -

Because I was young and healthy..."

You have something wrong here. The faster a virus incubates, the fewer people get infected. The infected person has less time to expose anyone.

[mike81]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

The problem with that is again, twofold.

1)That's a hell of a lot of people.

2)Other people in those households then infect the at-risk person. Isolating all those people with co-morbidities is not the least bit practical.

People imagine this is a solution, then they don't have to sacrifice anything. It's not feasible!

There's another aspect, if you do this impractical thing, you're also going to overflow all the hospitals.

Young healthy people die from the flu and those things about infecting someone else that could die can happen with the flu also.

Hospitals get overflowed at other times too. Anyone who's had to go to the hospital on a regular basis knows this. Just because you can find some that cannot handle it does not mean the whole country is in danger. Remember all those ventilators we supposedly needed? We used a small fraction of them.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by No Other

Great attempt at misdirection... You posted a Federal Law that allows the government to quarantine, prevent or isolate people ENTERING the USA. I have always agreed with that position. The CFR clearly states this is only for entry into the USA; it is up to the local states to determine what to do within the State's borders... again, I have stated this over and over.

By the way, Trump enacted this very same CFR and prevented Wuhan travelers from entering the USA in the very early stages of Covid-19 and it was Biden and the Democrats that said Trump was Xenophobic. If you are looking for blame...

Selective attention.

You ignored the fact every state has public health laws that allow people to be quarantined as well.

Quote:

States have police power functions to protect the health, safety, and welfare of persons within their borders. To control the spread of disease within their borders, states have laws to enforce the use of isolation and quarantine.

These laws can vary from state to state and can be specific or broad. In some states, local health authorities implement state law. In most states, breaking a quarantine order is a criminal misdemeanor.

[Delphic Oracle]

It was xenophobic because restrictions were not placed on other countries even when we knew those locations had high probability of bringing cases. Also allowing U.S. citizens to return, because apparently the virus couldn't cross nationality?

Actually, just one more example of feigned stupidity, I suspect.

This entire "science" thread is hopelessly drowning in political views at this point.

I'm hoping folks will stop indulging the hourly fringe resets at some point.

[Rolfe]

As regards getting a "better" vaccine, the goal of a vaccine like this is to facilitate elimination of the virus from the population. How long any boosters will be needed for depends on how efficiently that is achieved. After that it's just travel vaccination.

I would think in practice, in a population where active elimination is being pursued, the vaccines will be much of a muchness.

[EHocking]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

You have something wrong here. The faster a virus incubates, the fewer people get infected. The infected person has less time to expose anyone.

South Australian medicos are rather jumping the gun with panic about a new super strain. The same was said about the Victorian outbreak with nothing confirming that either.
No genomic testing has been done, and since patient zero was a traveller from the UK, this is probably just the “common” strain responsible for 90% of infections.

Unfortunately because of this belief in a short incubation period, SA is only enforcing 6 day lockdown, e.g., 2 x 3 day incubation, rather than the usual 14 days, (2 x 5 to 6 day incubation).

I hope they are right, otherwise their “hard lockdown” will be for nought.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Question: Assume that you get the first FDA-approved vaccine available to you. If another vaccine is released later that may be better for some reason, is there any medical reason why you can't get the second one?

Not usually, given you are talking about after there is sufficient supply.


There are some unique situations with a small number of pathogens. Too long to get into here.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

This has been doing the rounds for a couple of days: Covid antibodies found in blood taken in September 2019.

I believe the idea that Covid was gestating unseen in the population since September last year is nonsense, and the Science response suggests that false positives may be the issue.

The thought occurred to me that maybe there's a very similar coronavirus which has produced the false positives. This might also explain why some people seem to have the ability to be infected and have no symptoms while others die.

Theoretically, it's not all that unusual for a pathogen to sputter and fail to ignite the fire for a while before it breaks out into an epidemic or pandemic. There are many examples.

HIV smoldered for years in Africa before it broke out into a pandemic. It moved when a road was built that truckers frequented. Frequenting prostitutes combined with travel moved it out of the small area. A connection between the population and Haiti then moved it further.

And SARS 1 smoldered in Guangdong China for a couple months before it spread outside of the area into Hong Kong.

I will not be surprised to find a population connection between Wuhan and Italy.

Or it could be false positive tests.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

I did not suggest taking the people out of the mix, I clearly ( in my mind ) suggested taking the numbers out of the mix. The point being, if you address the comorbidities by treatment and prevention, you affect the outcome, and the reduce the number of deaths.

Apparently, I wasn't clear, but accusing me of advocating death panels and involuntary euthanasia, is ingenuous at best.

Because no one was doing that before COVID?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

I wouldn't say that it has never happened, but I would deny that it happens routinely, as is being suggested. I'm sure someone will be able to cherry-pick an example or two, but to suggest that it is widespread is disingenuous.

Technically as I mentioned earlier, a Medicare bill is not based on anything on the death certificate.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by mike81

Young healthy people die from the flu and those things about infecting someone else that could die can happen with the flu also.

Hospitals get overflowed at other times too. Anyone who's had to go to the hospital on a regular basis knows this. Just because you can find some that cannot handle it does not mean the whole country is in danger. Remember all those ventilators we supposedly needed? We used a small fraction of them.

Are you seriously still arguing COVID is no worse than flu?

Dude, that argument is so last summer.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Technically as I mentioned earlier, a Medicare bill is not based on anything on the death certificate.

Sure, but the other part of the claim - that there is widespread and deliberate over-reporting of deaths blamed on covid - is false.

[mike81]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Are you seriously still arguing COVID is no worse than flu?

Dude, that argument is so last summer.

Are you still denying that hospitals get paid more for Covid-19 patients because of the CARES Act?

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by mike81

Young healthy people die from the flu and those things about infecting someone else that could die can happen with the flu also.

Hospitals get overflowed at other times too. Anyone who's had to go to the hospital on a regular basis knows this. Just because you can find some that cannot handle it does not mean the whole country is in danger. Remember all those ventilators we supposedly needed? We used a small fraction of them.

Let's try it again:

1/ Covid is as much as five times or more deadlier than the flu. And death isn't the only bad outcome. Long-term consequences of covid can be much more severe for a large percentage of patients. Stop comparing covid to flu.

2/ Just because a hospital emergency room is crowded when you show up doesn't mean that the entire hospital is beyond capacity, and even if one hospital is filled doesn't mean the entire system is. But medical professionals across the U.S. are saying that they are being overwhelmed by covid in ways they've never experienced before. Are they lying? Do you know more as an occasional visitor than the people who work there? When have freezer trucks been used to store dead bodies before covid? Support your claims.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ap/6081153002/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...hs/6267612002/
https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/10/us/el...ues/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/11/us/el...rge/index.html

[Louden Wilde]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Let's try it again:

1/ Covid is as much as five times or more deadlier than the flu. And death isn't the only bad outcome. Long-term consequences of covid can be much more severe for a large percentage of patients. Stop comparing covid to flu.

2/ Just because a hospital emergency room is crowded when you show up doesn't mean that the entire hospital is beyond capacity, and even if one hospital is filled doesn't mean the entire system is. But medical professionals across the U.S. are saying that they are being overwhelmed by covid in ways they've never experienced before. Are they lying? Do you know more as an occasional visitor than the people who work there? When have freezer trucks been used to store dead bodies before covid? Support your claims.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ap/6081153002/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...hs/6267612002/
https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/10/us/el...ues/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/11/us/el...rge/index.html

This. I work at a large hospital in NYC and saw the morgue backed up, patients in the converted (huge) atrium, etc. That being said, I think the fundamental flaw in your argument here is that you're using logic and reason, which is group is notoriously refractory to. I don't think you're going to convince mike81 or the probably close to 70 million people in the US who think like him, unfortunately (part of why I am increasingly convinced the US should dissolve)

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by No Other

Your suggestion(s) should be aimed at you and others who are scared of Covid-19.

Full stop.

You keep invoking fear as if it were the only valid reason to take Covid-19 seriously. By doing that, you demonstrate that you are either unwilling or unable to deal with the issue with knowledge and intelligence.

Originally Posted by No Other

You act as if a healthy person is a menace.

You act as if omniscience is commonplace, that infectious people necessarily know that they're infectious, and that infectious people who know that they're infectious will necessarily exercise personal responsibility in relation to that.

Originally Posted by No Other

I don't have Covid-19, therefore I don't need to have the restrictions. I don't care what you think as long as it does not infringe on my rights as I am not imposing sanctions on you.

And that attitude is probably most of why things are as bad as they are, at this point. Even if you, personally, didn't make the problem worse, plenty of others who say much the same thing have. Which has then led to large amounts of preventable damage and death and continues to make things worse for everyone.

Originally Posted by No Other

By the way, Trump enacted this very same CFR and prevented Wuhan travelers from entering the USA in the very early stages of Covid-19 and it was Biden and the Democrats that said Trump was Xenophobic. If you are looking for blame...

Take that to the US Politics and the Coronavirus thread. I will barely poke at it here, though, by saying that context matters - and the context in this case renders your attempted argument here ridiculous.

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by Bob001

How do you know that? The President and everyone around him is tested frequently -- every day, by some accounts

Was being tested. The circumstances surrounding when he displayed symptoms strongly suggested that Trump hadn't been getting tested so often - and that the White House in general was doing a pretty terrible job on that front. I further doubt that he's getting tested at this point.

Originally Posted by Bob001

Let's try it again:

1/ Covid is as much as five times or more deadlier than the flu. And death isn't the only bad outcome. Long-term consequences of covid can be much more severe for a large percentage of patients. Stop comparing covid to flu

Quibble - There's nothing wrong with comparing covid-19 and influenza. Conflating them and treating them as equivalent/interchangeable is where the problem is. If I compare a cold with HIV, it can be an informative endeavor. If I were to try to treat them as if they were equivalent, that would be deeply problematic.

[Capsid]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Pure speculation.There are questions about how long immunity will last, whether it will reduce transmission, etc. But the experts I'm seeing are saying "get the first vaccine you can."
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...976-0/fulltext [from before the announcement of the two vaccines]

I can't think of an instance of a better vaccine from an immune response standpoint. There are alternative types. Perhaps polio is a good example. The inactivated vaccine protects the individual from disease but not onward transmission (although Sweden used the IPV alone and eradicated the virus) whereas the live virus vaccine does stop transmission. There may be parallels here for the COVID vaccine as discussed in the Lancet article you linked to. If the vaccine is licensed it has gone through rigorous testing and assessments.