ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 2085 of 3903
« First < 1085158519852035207520812082208320842085 208620872088208920952135218525853085 > Last »
Nzoner's Game Room>***NON-POLITICAL COVID-19 Discussion Thread***
JakeF 10:28 PM 02-26-2020
A couple of reminders...

Originally Posted by Bwana:
Once again, don't come in this thread with some kind of political agenda, or you will be shown the door. If you want to go that route, there is a thread about this in DC.
Originally Posted by Dartgod:
People, there is a lot of good information in this thread, let's try to keep the petty bickering to a minimum.

We all have varying opinions about the impact of this, the numbers, etc. We will all never agree with each other. But we can all keep it civil.

Thanks!

Click here for the original OP:

Spoiler!

[Reply]
Donger 09:41 AM 05-16-2020
Originally Posted by Kidd Lex:
I bet most of the posters in this thread who read scientific journals to learn about the novel coronavirus feel the same frustration I do educating the average friend or family member who only reads the headlines. It’s downright irresponsible the shit that gets put out there and is never corrected with the same eye popping headlines. Zero chance Donger has read any of the studies and still throws out the herd immunity comment. For those sailors to have been completely “recovered” at the cellular level and then to “catch” it again goes against everything know to viral science. There’s a mountain of evidence that’s says this novel coronavirus hangs out for weeks and some patients relapse. Also a mountain of evidence the tests provide insufficient accuracy to draw conclusions of reinfection vs relapse. Two week time period in this article is truly laughable. 8 weeks and I’d still guess they were relapsing, or even more likely detecting dead viral rna.
The last I read, there is currently no evidence that people who have recovered from COVID-19 and have antibodies are protected from a second infection.

Do you have evidence to the contrary?
[Reply]
Monticore 09:44 AM 05-16-2020
Originally Posted by Kidd Lex:
I bet most of the posters in this thread who read scientific journals to learn about the novel coronavirus feel the same frustration I do educating the average friend or family member who only reads the headlines. It’s downright irresponsible the shit that gets put out there and is never corrected with the same eye popping headlines. Zero chance Donger has read any of the studies and still throws out the herd immunity comment. For those sailors to have been completely “recovered” at the cellular level and then to “catch” it again goes against everything know to viral science. There’s a mountain of evidence that’s says this novel coronavirus hangs out for weeks and some patients relapse. Also a mountain of evidence the tests provide insufficient accuracy to draw conclusions of reinfection vs relapse. Two week time period in this article is truly laughable. 8 weeks and I’d still guess they were relapsing, or even more likely detecting dead viral rna.
The conversations I have in here is pretty much what my daily life is like because I work at the hospital my friends , family , patients fellow staff ask me the same Stuff over and over .

Two week timeline is pretty short to assume reinfection unless they had 10negative tests And even then I would question the test first.
[Reply]
Monticore 09:46 AM 05-16-2020
Originally Posted by Donger:
The last I read, there is currently no evidence that people who have recovered from COVID-19 and have antibodies are protected from a second infection.

Do you have evidence to the contrary?
Not sure they have proof , in theory they believe but they are unsure for how long and how much antibodies are needed to be .

That was last I read things may have changed
[Reply]
Kidd Lex 09:49 AM 05-16-2020
Originally Posted by Donger:
The last I read, there is currently no evidence that people who have recovered from COVID-19 and have antibodies are protected from a second infection.

Do you have evidence to the contrary?
Quite a bit of good data is emerging, but it’s not fear porn so it doesn’t get the clicks and therefore the headlines.

Here’s one from this week, of course nothing definitive, but it’s looking positive, pun not intended.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020...-term-immunity

https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2020/0...us-antibodies/

Again my point is not to take a shot at you, it’s the fact that the headlines stuff fear down our throats, but don’t highlight studies like the one above to update the fear inducing headlines. How many people still think Richard Jewel was the Olympic bomber? How many can name the actual bomber?
[Reply]
O.city 09:55 AM 05-16-2020
Originally Posted by Donger:
The last I read, there is currently no evidence that people who have recovered from COVID-19 and have antibodies are protected from a second infection.

Do you have evidence to the contrary?
Well, it was always unlikely because it would go against every other virus we've ever come in contact with.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....30.20085613v1

This shows that the vast majority seroconvert. If thats the case, they'll have immunity. We're now finding high levels of T cells as well in more recent studies, which woudl imply long term immunity.

Also good for vaccine development.
[Reply]
Donger 09:55 AM 05-16-2020
Thanks guys.
[Reply]
O.city 09:56 AM 05-16-2020
Its pretty much impossible to confirm long term immunity at this point though, we haven't had "long term" time to study it.
[Reply]
Kidd Lex 10:03 AM 05-16-2020
Originally Posted by O.city:
Its pretty much impossible to confirm long term immunity at this point though, we haven't had "long term" time to study it.
Yep, although SARS is a very similar virus and has proven to give 5+ years and likely more. Human body is amazing
[Reply]
'Hamas' Jenkins 10:23 AM 05-16-2020
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-1998

Guidelines from the American College of Physicians

Should Clinicians Use Chloroquine or Hydroxychloroquine Alone or in Combination With Azithromycin for the Prophylaxis or Treatment of COVID-19?

The efficacy of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine alone or in combination with azithromycin to prevent COVID-19 after infection with SARS-CoV-2 or to treat patients with COVID-19 is not established and future clinical trials are needed to answer these questions. There are known harms of these medications when used to treat other diseases (5, 6). Current evidence about efficacy and harms for use in the context of COVID-19 is sparse, conflicting, and from low quality studies, increasing the uncertainty and lowering our confidence in the conclusions of these studies when assessing the benefits or understanding the balance when compared with harms. These interim practice points are based on best available evidence. We will maintain these practice points as a living guidance document, updated as new evidence becomes available.

Do not use chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine alone or in combination with azithromycin as prophylaxis against COVID-19 due to known harms and no available evidence of benefits in the general population.

Do not use chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine alone or in combination with azithromycin as a treatment of patients with COVID-19 due to known harms and no available evidence of benefits in patients with COVID-19.

In light of known harms and very uncertain evidence of benefit in patients with COVID-19, using shared and informed decision making with patients (and their families), clinicians may treat hospitalized COVID-19–positive patients with chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine alone or in combination with azithromycin in the context of a clinical trial.

Should chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine in combination with azithromycin be used for treatment of patients with COVID-19?

Interventions Use? Rationale
Chloroquine NO* No available evidence in COVID-19–positive patients
Chloroquine + Azithr NO* No available evidence in COVID-19–positive patients
Hydroxychloroquine NO* Insufficient evidence about benefits and harms
Hydroxychloroquine + NO* Insufficient evidence about benefits and harms
Azithromycin
[Reply]
'Hamas' Jenkins 10:32 AM 05-16-2020
Originally Posted by Donger:
So what's the estimated CFR?
Antibody tests in France put the IFR at 0.7% with a 95% range of 0.5%-0.9%
[Reply]
Donger 10:36 AM 05-16-2020
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
Antibody tests in France put the IFR at 0.7% with a 95% range of 0.5%-0.9%
Thanks.
[Reply]
Donger 10:39 AM 05-16-2020
Question: don't most of us have antibodies for seasonal flu?
[Reply]
Monticore 10:47 AM 05-16-2020
Originally Posted by Donger:
Question: don't most of us have antibodies for seasonal flu?
The flu shot protects you for about 6 months depending on the person
[Reply]
Donger 10:49 AM 05-16-2020
Originally Posted by Monticore:
The flu shot protects you for about 6 months depending on the person
What about people who don't get flu shots? Haven't most of them been exposed to seasonal influenza, and shouldn't they therefore have antibodies?
[Reply]
Monticore 10:52 AM 05-16-2020
Originally Posted by Donger:
What about people who don't get flu shots? Haven't most of them been exposed to seasonal influenza, and shouldn't they therefore have antibodies?

Flu viruses continually change over time. This constant changing enables the virus to evade the immune system, so that people are susceptible to the flu throughout life. This process works as follows: a person infected with a flu virus develops antibodies against that virus; as the virus changes, the "older" antibodies no longer recognizes the "newer" virus, and the person gets sick. The older antibodies can, however, provide partial protection against newer viruses.

Copied it, explains it bettering than I could.plus I lam lazy
[Reply]
Page 2085 of 3903
« First < 1085158519852035207520812082208320842085 208620872088208920952135218525853085 > Last »
Up