IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Coronavirus , vaccine

Reply
Old 28th November 2020, 11:34 PM   #1
marting
Master Poster
 
marting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,141
The One Covid-19 Science and Medicine Thread Part 3

Mod InfoContinuation from: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=344976
Posted By:Darat
Another Ivermectin study. Small randomized clinical trial but with rather strong positive benefits.

https://icite.od.nih.gov/covid19/sea...rdId=rs-109670

Ivermectin as an adjunct treatment for hospitalized adult COVID-19 patients: A randomized multi-center clinical trial

Abstract
Background: It appears that ivermectin can potentially act against COVID-19 infection. Today, it is an urgent need to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ivermectin. The effect of ivermectin therapy on mild to severe COVID-19 patients was investigated.

Methods: A 45-days randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, phase 2 clinical trial was designed at five hospitals. A total number of 180 mild to severe hospitalized patients with confirmed PCR and chest image tests were enrolled. The radiographic findings, hospitalization and low O2 saturation duration, and clinical outcomes such as mortality and variables of blood samples were analyzed using standard statistical analyses in SPSS (V20).

Results: Average age of the participants was 56 years (45-67) and 50% were women. The primary and secondary results showed significant changes between day zero and day five of admission (∆ 0/5) in terms of ΔALC5/0, ΔPLT5/0, ΔESR5/0, ΔCRP5/0, duration of low O2 saturation, and duration of hospitalization (CI = 95% ). Risk of mortality was also decreased significantly in the study groups.

Conclusion: Ivermectin as an adjunct reduced the rate of mortality, low O2 duration, and duration of hospitalization in adult COVID 19 patients. The improvement of other clinical parameters showed that the ivermectin, with a wide margin of safety, had a high therapeutic effect on COVID-19.
__________________
Flying's easy. Walking on water, now that's cool.

Last edited by Darat; 30th November 2020 at 05:27 AM.
marting is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2020, 11:40 PM   #2
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 28,282
Originally Posted by marting View Post
Another Ivermectin study. Small randomized clinical trial but with rather strong positive benefits.
That's more excellent news.

A little ironic the HCQ people were on the right track with an anti-parasitic drug, just the wrong one. And a much safer one!
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2020, 01:06 AM   #3
Orphia Nay
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger
 
Orphia Nay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 38,744
Dr Mobeen Syed (whose video on Vitamin D I posted quite a while back) posted another video about Ivermectin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEO7Adv3tVI

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


This one's about how Ivermectin helps against SARS-COV-2 via its

De-worming mechanism and cellular effect (@ 7:40)
Antiviral effect (@ 13 min) (it occupies the importins so the virus can't enter the nuclei and the cell can release interferons)
Antiinflammatory mechanism (@ 18.22).
__________________
"We stigmatize and send to the margins
people who trigger in us the feelings we want to avoid"
- Melinda Gates, "The Moment of Lift".
Orphia Nay is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2020, 01:07 AM   #4
Orphia Nay
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger
 
Orphia Nay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 38,744
Dr Mobeen Syed (whose video on Vitamin D I posted quite a while back) posted another video about Ivermectin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEO7Adv3tVI

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


This one's about how Ivermectin helps against SARS-COV-2 via its

-De-worming mechanism and cellular effect (@ 7:40)

-Antiviral effect (@ 13 min) (it occupies the importins so the virus can't enter the nuclei and the cell can release interferons)

-Anti-inflammatory mechanism (@ 18.22).
__________________
"We stigmatize and send to the margins
people who trigger in us the feelings we want to avoid"
- Melinda Gates, "The Moment of Lift".
Orphia Nay is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2020, 09:01 PM   #5
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 86,889
Addressing again how COVID 19 is spread.

From the Sweden thread:
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Yes, they're describing aerosol transmission indoors, and "long distances or times" is a relative term. True airborne transmission where the bloody thing blows on the wind and can be caught hundreds of metres away downwind in the open air is thankfully not an issue with this one.
That is simply not true. Tuberculosis is airborne yet you won't catch it outside in the wind. You have to breathe in a concentrated amount of droplet nuclei (not to be confused with droplets in droplet spread) in order for enough of the TB bacillus to make it to the alveoli which has the conditions it requires to start an infection.

More than a few professionals who should know better are still unwilling to call COVID airborne. They bought into the droplet spread the same way some of them bought into no asymptomatic spread and they just can't let go.

They took my temperature today at the clinic I went to for an MRI. Even the bank had sense enough to ask some standard questions about one's potential exposure before they let me in. But clinics and the airport are still screening people for fever like this was SARS 1 and fever was a reliable means of screening people. Not to mention I take acetaminophen every day for chronic pain. It would mask a fever if I had one. No one who has taken my temperature has asked if I were on any antipyretics.

And now here we are again ignoring the science that has documented COVID 19 being airborne spread. Instead of going by the science, people are clinging to their initial information that it was droplet spread.

Use caution interpreting all those guidelines that ignore airborne spread or papers that simply say 'some airborne but only sometimes'. Pathogens can be airborne and droplet spread. They need not be one or the other.

Tuberculosis for anyone curious is never droplet spread. Put it on your hands and into your mouth and it won't grow.

Now you can get TB when it is aerosolized by the bone saw in surgery or in an autopsy. And you can get it from a dirty needle in which case it develops an abscess. But you probably won't get miliary TB (disseminated) by using a dirty needle. The number of organisms injected are too few to really get a start.

My point is, pathogens do not always fall neatly into the categories we put them in. COVID 19 is droplet spread and airborne. There is no reason to fuss over it. I can't imagine putting up an isolation sign on a patient's room that said: DROPLET PRECAUTIONS and sometimes AIRBORNE PRECAUTIONS. See the nurses for an explanation.

The same with teaching or recommending isolation policy, it's not useful if I had to say droplet spread then go into a paragraph long caveat.

It is droplet spread and yes, it is also airborne. And if our CDC hadn't been trashed by having the leadership (including Fauci) completely politicized, it wouldn't even be an issue. It would have been designated airborne and droplet spread last March which is when I read the first reports that it was clearly airborne.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 29th November 2020 at 09:03 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2020, 04:48 PM   #6
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 46,933
Sure.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2020, 05:09 PM   #7
portlandatheist
Illuminator
 
portlandatheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,610
I apologize if this has already been posted. the MMR vaccine is thought to provide cross-immunity to Covid
Original Paper
Dr. John Campell explains:
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
portlandatheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2020, 05:26 PM   #8
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 28,282
Originally Posted by portlandatheist View Post
I apologize if this has already been posted. the MMR vaccine is thought to provide cross-immunity to Covid .
Yep, that's about the fourth time in this thread.

It certainly looks likely, but can't be proven.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2020, 06:19 PM   #9
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 86,889
Again a spillover from the Sweden thread:

Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
It is absolutely true. I stated that this coronavirus does not spread long distances outdoors on the wind. It doesn't. Unless you know something nobody else does.
You said it wasn't airborne because it wasn't spread outdoors in the wind.

I said you don't need outdoor long distance spread to define a pathogen as airborne—thus the example of TB which is airborne.

If you agree COVID 19 can be spread via aerosols and quit claiming it is not airborne then we have no disagreement.

You can say, 'less often airborne' or 'airborne in enclosed spaces with poor ventilation'. But it is not true to claim it isn't really airborne.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2020, 07:57 PM   #10
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 28,282
More on the long-term damage in long Covid sufferers.

May well be permanent. Small study, but one to watch.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55017301
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2020, 12:47 AM   #11
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 86,889
You can't address the routes of transmission without addressing the inherent bias one finds when searching for scientific studies.

CIDRAP: Yet more data support COVID-19 aerosol transmission

CIDRAP, Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, is a respected source and is not under the authority of any political body.

Quote:
Two studies published late last week in Clinical Infectious Diseases highlight the role of airborne spread of COVID-19 and the importance of efficient ventilation systems. One study found that patients can exhale millions of viral RNA particles per hour in the early stages of disease, and the second tied an outbreak affecting 81% of residents and 50% of healthcare workers at a Dutch nursing home to inadequate ventilation.
One study:
Quote:
The findings support previous studies that concluded that COVID-19 is mostly likely spread by aerosols rather than large respiratory droplets or contaminated surfaces, the researchers said. Such studies have documented airborne spread in semi-enclosed environments such as a choir practice in Washington state and a restaurant in Guangzhou, China.

"Though we did not study infectivity or transmission probability and other virus releasing activities such as talking and singing, our study demonstrates that exhaled breath emission plays an important role in SARS-CoV-2 emission into the air, which could have contributed greatly to the observed airborne cluster infections and the ongoing pandemic," the authors wrote.
Study 2:
Quote:
Suspecting that the ventilation system of the affected ward could have contributed to the outbreak, investigators found that an energy-efficient system had been installed in which indoor air was refreshed only when indoor carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations detected elevated levels. If CO2 levels didn't exceed a certain threshold, unfiltered indoor air was simply recirculated throughout the ward. In contrast, the six unaffected wards were refreshed regularly with outside air....

"We advise that prevention of COVID-19 transmission should take into account the possibility of aerosol transmission in healthcare facilities and other buildings where ventilation systems recirculate unfiltered inside air," the authors of the Aug 28 study wrote.
The issue wasn't spread > 6 feet within a room. Rather the issue was the aerosols being spread through the ventilation system.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 1st December 2020 at 12:56 AM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2020, 04:11 AM   #12
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Yokohama, Japan
Posts: 25,739
Can someone please explain this to me?

https://www.news.com.au/world/corona...64d9bddfcb495d

Quote:
Since the 1960s, cell lines from aborted foetuses have been used to manufacture vaccines, including current vaccines against rubella, chickenpox, hepatitis A, and shingles to treat haemophilia, rheumatoid arthritis, and cystic fibrosis.

At least five of the candidate COVID-19 vaccines being trialled on humans use around the world use one of two human foetal cell lines: HEK-293, a kidney cell line widely used in research that comes from a foetus aborted in about 1972; and another cell line known as PER. C6.
Apparently this makes some of the potential vaccine candidates objectionable to some religious people. But I'm just trying to understand the science part. What role do these cell lines play in the manufacture of the vaccine and are they actually contained in the vaccine itself?
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2020, 04:16 AM   #13
Capsid
Graduate Poster
 
Capsid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,741
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
Can someone please explain this to me?

https://www.news.com.au/world/corona...64d9bddfcb495d



Apparently this makes some of the potential vaccine candidates objectionable to some religious people. But I'm just trying to understand the science part. What role do these cell lines play in the manufacture of the vaccine and are they actually contained in the vaccine itself?
They are producer cell lines. They make the recombinant proteins or the virus vectors. Both are purified from the cell culture supernatant. So no they are not in the vaccine as a whole cell.
Capsid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2020, 05:37 AM   #14
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Yokohama, Japan
Posts: 25,739
Originally Posted by Capsid View Post
They are producer cell lines. They make the recombinant proteins or the virus vectors. Both are purified from the cell culture supernatant. So no they are not in the vaccine as a whole cell.
Thanks.

Is there a way, even if there's no logical reason for it, to use cells taken from someone or something other than an aborted fetus to make these vaccines, or is there something special about aborted fetus cells that no other kinds of cells can do?
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2020, 05:42 AM   #15
Capsid
Graduate Poster
 
Capsid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,741
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
Thanks.

Is there a way, even if there's no logical reason for it, to use cells taken from someone or something other than an aborted fetus to make these vaccines, or is there something special about aborted fetus cells that no other kinds of cells can do?
There are plenty of other cells. But these are commonly used and have a record of use (and safety) in vaccine production. The main issue is whether the cell lines carry viruses and a lot of work has been done to show that these cells don't have this issue.
Capsid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2020, 10:21 AM   #16
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 28,282
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
Thanks.

Is there a way, even if there's no logical reason for it, to use cells taken from someone or something other than an aborted fetus to make these vaccines, or is there something special about aborted fetus cells that no other kinds of cells can do?
My mind boggles that that's an issue.

It's like homeopathy for microbiology - 150 bajillion generations ago, the ancestors of these cells were taken from a foetus. Shall we call them 300C cells?
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2020, 04:26 PM   #17
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Yokohama, Japan
Posts: 25,739
The funny thing is, it seems they would have no objection if the fetus came from a miscarriage rather than an abortion. It's not the foetus part but the "electively aborted" part that they object to.
Quote:
“The Commonwealth has chosen to throw its lot in with one that makes use of a cell-line (HEK293) cultured from an electively aborted human foetus,’’ the Archbishop’s letter states.
If they could take foetal stem cells from a naturally aborted (miscarried) foetus and use those for the same purpose, would their objections go away?

It's not an issue for me, but the god-botherers want to make it an issue.

As an aside, I'm leaning toward wanting one of the mRNA vaccines myself for completely different reasons: they just seem to work better. 95% efficacy vs. 70%. But I'll take whatever becomes available to me.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2020, 05:55 AM   #18
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Yokohama, Japan
Posts: 25,739
Coronavirus latest: Antibodies persist for six months, Japan study says

That means at least 6 months. But probably longer.

Quote:
9:18 a.m. A research team from Japan's Yokohama City University announced Wednesday that most people infected with the novel coronavirus have sufficient antibodies to prevent reinfection, even after six months. The study of 376 people found neutralizing antibodies in 97% of those with mild or asymptomatic infections, and in all of those with moderate or severe infections.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2020, 09:39 AM   #19
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Canada, eh?
Posts: 17,110
Not sure if this has been covered before...

From: Forbes
Testing has found Covid-19 infections in the U.S. in December 2019, according to a study, providing further evidence indicating the coronavirus was spreading globally weeks before the first cases were reported in China. The study published Monday identified 106 infections from 7,389 blood samples collected from donors in nine U.S. states between Dec. 13 and Jan. 17.

So its possible that people were infected in the U.S. only weeks after the first case was detected in China.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2020, 10:00 AM   #20
Capsid
Graduate Poster
 
Capsid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,741
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Not sure if this has been covered before...

From: Forbes
Testing has found Covid-19 infections in the U.S. in December 2019, according to a study, providing further evidence indicating the coronavirus was spreading globally weeks before the first cases were reported in China. The study published Monday identified 106 infections from 7,389 blood samples collected from donors in nine U.S. states between Dec. 13 and Jan. 17.

So its possible that people were infected in the U.S. only weeks after the first case was detected in China.
Why didn't they test samples before the Dec 13th window? The seropositivity rate may just be a low cross-reactivity of the assays as a result of "sticky" samples.
Capsid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2020, 10:06 AM   #21
Delphic Oracle
Philosopher
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 5,354
Originally Posted by Capsid View Post
Why didn't they test samples before the Dec 13th window? The seropositivity rate may just be a low cross-reactivity of the assays as a result of "sticky" samples.
I don't know that it was definitively stated they didn't test samples from before that date. The sample group that showed infections was the one worth mentioning could be all there is to it. There are only so many "column inches" available.

As to certainty, they addressed that:

"The scientists indicated itís unlikely that the antibodies developed to curb other coronaviruses, as 84 samples were found to have neutralizing activity specific to SARS-CoV-2"

So that first number may have false positives, okay. But 84 almost certain infections in December does increase likelihood of global spread in December.

Yes, it remains an open question how much it was spreading, but snapshots like this can't tell us that and we shouldn't expect them to.

Last edited by Delphic Oracle; 2nd December 2020 at 10:09 AM.
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2020, 10:15 AM   #22
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Canada, eh?
Posts: 17,110
Originally Posted by Capsid View Post
Quote:
Not sure if this has been covered before...

From: Forbes
...The study published Monday identified 106 infections from 7,389 blood samples collected from donors in nine U.S. states between Dec. 13 and Jan. 17.
Why didn't they test samples before the Dec 13th window? The seropositivity rate may just be a low cross-reactivity of the assays as a result of "sticky" samples.
I don't really know why they didn't test earlier samples. Neither the Forbes article (nor the actual research paper linked to by Forbes) mentions why that wasn't done. (The research article does mention the need for further studies.)
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2020, 11:04 AM   #23
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 28,282
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Not sure if this has been covered before...

From: Forbes
Testing has found Covid-19 infections in the U.S. in December 2019, according to a study, providing further evidence indicating the coronavirus was spreading globally weeks before the first cases were reported in China. The study published Monday identified 106 infections from 7,389 blood samples collected from donors in nine U.S. states between Dec. 13 and Jan. 17.

So its possible that people were infected in the U.S. only weeks after the first case was detected in China.
I remain deeply suspicious of the now several claims of early spread.

1 - Nobody was getting hospitalised with unknown pneumonias. We can be fairly sure that's correct, because most countries went back and checked.

2 - The Italian study making the same claims was of lung cancer patients, and yes they are at extremely high risk of serious harm. And none were hospitalised or died, or even sick, as far as I could find.

3 - If there were cases, how come none showed up before they did? And when they did start to show up, clear paths to China were found.

4 - If there were earlier cases, places like NZ and Aussie, which have enormous international tourism in the summer months, would have seen cases much earlier.

5 - If there were earlier cases, how come none of the people found with antibodies to date had an infection earlier than Dec/Jan?
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2020, 11:07 AM   #24
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 46,933
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
The funny thing is, it seems they would have no objection if the fetus came from a miscarriage rather than an abortion. It's not the foetus part but the "electively aborted" part that they object to.

If they could take foetal stem cells from a naturally aborted (miscarried) foetus and use those for the same purpose, would their objections go away?

You don't really understand this. It's not that the vaccine needs any old foetal cells. It's that it has been grown in this particular long-maintained cell line which is well-characterised and known to be both safe and optimal for the purpose. The last thing you want to be doing right now is to raise a new cell line from scratch and substitute it for the tried and tested one.

Apart from anything else, the time required to deveop and test a brand new cell line could take the vaccine years into the future.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2020, 11:51 AM   #25
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Canada, eh?
Posts: 17,110
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
I remain deeply suspicious of the now several claims of early spread.

1 - Nobody was getting hospitalised with unknown pneumonias. We can be fairly sure that's correct, because most countries went back and checked.
...
5 - If there were earlier cases, how come none of the people found with antibodies to date had an infection earlier than Dec/Jan?
[/quote]
Could this be a combination of the fact that most cases are asymptomatic, and the possibility that when a serious case is encountered, it might be mischaracterized as related to influenza (not sure how often they actually do tests for the virus itself, or just make assumptions).

Or if I wanted to engage in some more... fanciful thinking, could the virus have mutated somehow, in between an initial spread in 2019 and the more wide dispersal of 2020 to cause it to become more deadly?

Quote:
4 - If there were earlier cases, places like NZ and Aussie, which have enormous international tourism in the summer months, would have seen cases much earlier.
Its NZ and Australia. Maybe between the roving bands of Orcs in New Zealand and every possible dangerous animal in Australia, they had other things to worry about.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2020, 12:03 PM   #26
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 11,366
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Not sure if this has been covered before...

From: Forbes
Testing has found Covid-19 infections in the U.S. in December 2019, according to a study, providing further evidence indicating the coronavirus was spreading globally weeks before the first cases were reported in China. The study published Monday identified 106 infections from 7,389 blood samples collected from donors in nine U.S. states between Dec. 13 and Jan. 17.

So its possible that people were infected in the U.S. only weeks after the first case was detected in China.
Link to the study:

https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance...aa1785/6012472

What they found was Covid reactive antibodies in blood samples taken between Dec 13 2019 and Jan 17 2020. The samples were provided by the red cross presumably as a part of their standard blood testing.


I don't know enough about the subject to know if there are other potential explanations like a cross reaction to another corona virus. At least some of the reactivity was specific to the spike.

Abstract:

Quote:

Methods

To determine if SARS-CoV-2 reactive antibodies were present in sera prior to the first identified case in the U.S. on January 19, 2020, residual archived samples from 7,389 routine blood donations collected by the American Red Cross from December 13, 2019 to January 17, 2020, from donors resident in nine states (California, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wisconsin) were tested at CDC for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Specimens reactive by pan-immunoglobulin (pan Ig) enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) against the full spike protein were tested by IgG and IgM ELISAs, microneutralization test, Ortho total Ig S1 ELISA, and receptor binding domain / Ace2 blocking activity assay.


Results

Of the 7,389 samples, 106 were reactive by pan Ig. Of these 106 specimens, 90 were available for further testing. Eighty four of 90 had neutralizing activity, 1 had S1 binding activity, and 1 had receptor binding domain / Ace2 blocking activity >50%, suggesting the presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2-reactive antibodies. Donations with reactivity occurred in all nine states.


Conclusions

These findings suggest that SARS-CoV-2 may have been introduced into the United States prior to January 19, 2020.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"

Last edited by lomiller; 2nd December 2020 at 12:04 PM.
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2020, 12:13 PM   #27
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 28,282
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Could this be a combination of the fact that most cases are asymptomatic, and the possibility that when a serious case is encountered, it might be mischaracterized as related to influenza (not sure how often they actually do tests for the virus itself, or just make assumptions).
That goes back to the post-infection testing, which didn't find Covid.

Look at it this way - we've seen what exponential growth looks like, and if the Red Cross is right, 1.5% of the population had been infected by Jan 17.

That's just impossible - serious cases would have been everywhere.

As to mutation of the virus, it also seems highly unlikely, because the genomic history of it is well understood now and there aren't any odd branches - they all come from the original outbreak.

Or if I wanted to engage in some more... fanciful thinking, could the virus have mutated somehow, in between an initial spread in 2019 and the more wide dispersal of 2020 to cause it to become more deadly?

Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Its NZ and Australia. Maybe between the roving bands of Orcs in New Zealand and every possible dangerous animal in Australia, they had other things to worry about.
Scared them to death!
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2020, 02:20 PM   #28
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 11,366
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post

Look at it this way - we've seen what exponential growth looks like, and if the Red Cross is right, 1.5% of the population had been infected by Jan 17.
That depends on how you read it doesn't it? Eg maybe only the S1 binding activity and the ACE2 blocking indicate COVID-19 were present. The remainder could indicate Covid-19 but could also be cross immunity from a cold caused by a different corona virus?
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2020, 02:29 PM   #29
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 28,282
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
That depends on how you read it doesn't it? Eg maybe only the S1 binding activity and the ACE2 blocking indicate COVID-19 were present. The remainder could indicate Covid-19 but could also be cross immunity from a cold caused by a different corona virus?
I don't doubt the findings, just the conclusion that it was Covid. It was clearly something.

Much more interesting would be to know if any of those people subsequently became infected with Covid, and what symptoms they had. It could be the missing link we've been searching for all along - why some people get virtually nothing while others are dead in days.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2020, 02:37 PM   #30
marting
Master Poster
 
marting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,141
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
That depends on how you read it doesn't it? Eg maybe only the S1 binding activity and the ACE2 blocking indicate COVID-19 were present. The remainder could indicate Covid-19 but could also be cross immunity from a cold caused by a different corona virus?
That's how I read it. May well have been only 1 or 2 true positives with 1 highly likely. Also, the first known C19 death was Feb. 7 in N. Calif. and wasn't discovered for a month or so afterwards. Only then because the family pestered the coroner to send in tissues for PCR testing.

And, given an IFR of around 1% and 3 to 4 week time from infection to death, there could easily have been quite a number of C19 infected people early to mid Jan. Also, the flu season was ramping up at the same time and testing was nearly non-existent due to the early CDC screwups. So my read is that the report is consistent with what was reasonably expected given the large unknowns and few knowns at that time.
__________________
Flying's easy. Walking on water, now that's cool.
marting is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2020, 03:08 PM   #31
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 26,510
Originally Posted by marting View Post
That's how I read it. May well have been only 1 or 2 true positives with 1 highly likely. Also, the first known C19 death was Feb. 7 in N. Calif. and wasn't discovered for a month or so afterwards. Only then because the family pestered the coroner to send in tissues for PCR testing.

And, given an IFR of around 1% and 3 to 4 week time from infection to death, there could easily have been quite a number of C19 infected people early to mid Jan. Also, the flu season was ramping up at the same time and testing was nearly non-existent due to the early CDC screwups. So my read is that the report is consistent with what was reasonably expected given the large unknowns and few knowns at that time.
In China, the doctors detected Covid 19 because they were getting patients that were not responding to normal treatment. If Covid 19 had been common in the rest of the world then it would have been detected in the same way. Unless you want to argue the doctors in China were far better than anywhere else in the world? But that, I think is silly.
__________________
This signature is for rent.
rjh01 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2020, 04:15 PM   #32
Delphic Oracle
Philosopher
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 5,354
Originally Posted by rjh01 View Post
In China, the doctors detected Covid 19 because they were getting patients that were not responding to normal treatment. If Covid 19 had been common in the rest of the world then it would have been detected in the same way. Unless you want to argue the doctors in China were far better than anywhere else in the world? But that, I think is silly.
How could doctors in part of the world where outbreaks are more common and taken deadly seriously possibly be better at this than us?!

We have better schools and better facilities and, and...
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2020, 04:26 PM   #33
Dr.Sid
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Olomouc, Czech Republic
Posts: 3,171
Unckecked or poorly checked Covid makes pretty unmistakable dents on exces death graphs. The spread itself could start elsewhere and sooner, but not way sooner.
Dr.Sid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2020, 04:36 PM   #34
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 7,449
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
How could doctors in part of the world where outbreaks are more common and taken deadly seriously possibly be better at this than us?!

We have better schools and better facilities and, and...
Just to poke at this a little - that's a half-truth. In China, the concept of "face" is pretty much part of much of the culture, at last check. Rather consistently, that's led to officials trying to cover problems up so that their "face" remains unblemished. Once something can no longer be covered up, they're much more likely to smack down on it, hard, yes, but before then, not so much. That looks like exactly what happened this time at Wuhan, for that matter.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2020, 04:38 PM   #35
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Yokohama, Japan
Posts: 25,739
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Not sure if this has been covered before...

From: Forbes
Testing has found Covid-19 infections in the U.S. in December 2019, according to a study, providing further evidence indicating the coronavirus was spreading globally weeks before the first cases were reported in China. The study published Monday identified 106 infections from 7,389 blood samples collected from donors in nine U.S. states between Dec. 13 and Jan. 17.

So its possible that people were infected in the U.S. only weeks after the first case was detected in China.
Probably stronger evidence for false positive tests than it is evidence for worldwide spread in late 2019.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2020, 06:05 PM   #36
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 86,889
Originally Posted by Capsid View Post
Why didn't they test samples before the Dec 13th window? The seropositivity rate may just be a low cross-reactivity of the assays as a result of "sticky" samples.
That was my first question, negative tests aside, what are they using as controls?

My second concern was, seems like this many positive tests among blood donors would represent a huge number in the general population.

My third issue, other than the fact there were a few more positives in the second half of the tested batch (they divided the spec into two groups, one earlier, one later) I didn't see any analysis if this was statistically significant.

And the results seem pretty spaced out over multiple states. I don't see that they analyzed if there was a pattern suggesting single source origins.

There is so much wrong with this study.

There is a link to the original study in this Forbes article. I can't link directly to the pdf file for some reason.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 2nd December 2020 at 06:06 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2020, 06:22 PM   #37
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 86,889
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
I don't know that it was definitively stated they didn't test samples from before that date. The sample group that showed infections was the one worth mentioning could be all there is to it. There are only so many "column inches" available.

As to certainty, they addressed that:

"The scientists indicated itís unlikely that the antibodies developed to curb other coronaviruses, as 84 samples were found to have neutralizing activity specific to SARS-CoV-2"

So that first number may have false positives, okay. But 84 almost certain infections in December does increase likelihood of global spread in December.

Yes, it remains an open question how much it was spreading, but snapshots like this can't tell us that and we shouldn't expect them to.
But they are describing using ELISA tests. You would expect a few false positives with ELISA testing as it is a screening test. I don't see that they did a more definitive follow up test like an IFA.

Though they do claim:
Quote:
Fourth, even with a highly specific test, false positives may occur,
particularly in low prevalence areas [29]. However, the number of reactive specimens
identified in this study was higher than expected given the specificity of the pan Ig spike
ELISA. Furthermore, additional evidence including microneutralization, detection of both
SARS-CoV-2 specific IgG and IgM, and SARS-CoV-2 S1-specific Ig reactivity, make it very
unlikely that all reactive specimens represent false positives. Further studies involving
retrospective analyses of human specimens with molecular or serologic methods are
necessary to further corroborate the present findings, which suggest the presence of specific

antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in the U.S. as early as mid-December 2019.
I didn't read the paper very carefully, I'm a bit distracted at the moment. Maybe someone else can add to this.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2020, 06:35 PM   #38
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 86,889
Originally Posted by marting View Post
That's how I read it. May well have been only 1 or 2 true positives with 1 highly likely. Also, the first known C19 death was Feb. 7 in N. Calif. and wasn't discovered for a month or so afterwards. Only then because the family pestered the coroner to send in tissues for PCR testing.

And, given an IFR of around 1% and 3 to 4 week time from infection to death, there could easily have been quite a number of C19 infected people early to mid Jan. Also, the flu season was ramping up at the same time and testing was nearly non-existent due to the early CDC screwups. So my read is that the report is consistent with what was reasonably expected given the large unknowns and few knowns at that time.
But these aren't random samples. They tested blood from blood donors. If that many tests were positive it would represent a huge number of cases in the general population.

Now take that and consider if the unique chest X-rays wouldn't have raised alarms. All the viral cultures negative, physicians have more than one patient critically ill with unique chest X-rays.... it would have been noticed.

Now if those had been more random samples, not blood donors it would be a different story.

Or if the positive findings were geographically clustered, that would be a different story.

Had they found one or two positives in the first half of Dec and the rest clustered in late Dec-Jan that would be a different story.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2020, 08:25 PM   #39
marting
Master Poster
 
marting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,141
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
But these aren't random samples. They tested blood from blood donors. If that many tests were positive it would represent a huge number of cases in the general population.
Exactly. As TA noted, no way in hell that even 1% of the 7.3k samples were true positives. Deaths would have been ramping up more than a month before they actually did.

Quote:
Now take that and consider if the unique chest X-rays wouldn't have raised alarms. All the viral cultures negative, physicians have more than one patient critically ill with unique chest X-rays.... it would have been noticed.

Now if those had been more random samples, not blood donors it would be a different story.

Or if the positive findings were geographically clustered, that would be a different story.

Had they found one or two positives in the first half of Dec and the rest clustered in late Dec-Jan that would be a different story.
Yep. And the one strongest test was collected on Jan. 10.

The study would have been more useful had it at least had a comparable sample set from say, Sept./Oct.
__________________
Flying's easy. Walking on water, now that's cool.
marting is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2020, 02:27 AM   #40
Capsid
Graduate Poster
 
Capsid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,741
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
But they are describing using ELISA tests. You would expect a few false positives with ELISA testing as it is a screening test. I don't see that they did a more definitive follow up test like an IFA.

Though they do claim:

I didn't read the paper very carefully, I'm a bit distracted at the moment. Maybe someone else can add to this.
What's an IFA? Immunofluorescence assay?
They did run a neutralisation assay against the wild type virus which tends to be a very specific measure. But they would still get a low positivity with sticky samples depending on the assay cut-off. Looking at pre-pandemic samples would have helped.
Capsid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:36 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.