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!
Apparently the CoronaVirus can survive on a inanimate objects, such as door knobs, for 9 days.
California coronavirus case could be first spread within U.S. community, CDC says
By SOUMYA KARLAMANGLA, JACLYN COSGROVE
FEB. 26, 2020 8:04 PM
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is investigating what could be the first case of novel coronavirus in the United States involving a patient in California who neither recently traveled out of the country nor was in contact with someone who did.
“At this time, the patient’s exposure is unknown. It’s possible this could be an instance of community spread of COVID-19, which would be the first time this has happened in the United States,” the CDC said in a statement. “Community spread means spread of an illness for which the source of infection is unknown. It’s also possible, however, that the patient may have been exposed to a returned traveler who was infected.”
The individual is a resident of Solano County and is receiving medical care in Sacramento County, according to the state Department of Public Health.
The CDC said the “case was detected through the U.S. public health system — picked up by astute clinicians.”
Officials at UC Davis Medical Center expanded on what the federal agency might have meant by that in an email sent Wednesday, as reported by the Davis Enterprise newspaper.
The patient arrived at UC Davis Medical Center from another hospital Feb. 19 and “had already been intubated, was on a ventilator, and given droplet protection orders because of an undiagnosed and suspected viral condition,” according to an email sent by UC Davis officials that was obtained by the Davis Enterprise.
The staff at UC Davis requested COVID-19 testing by the CDC, but because the patient didn’t fit the CDC’s existing criteria for the virus, a test wasn’t immediately administered, according to the email. The CDC then ordered the test Sunday, and results were announced Wednesday. Hospital administrators reportedly said in the email that despite these issues, there has been minimal exposure at the hospital because of safety protocols they have in place.
A UC Davis Health spokesperson declined Wednesday evening to share the email with The Times.
Since Feb. 2, more than 8,400 returning travelers from China have entered California, according to the state health department. They have been advised to self-quarantine for 14 days and limit interactions with others as much as possible, officials said.
“This is a new virus, and while we are still learning about it, there is a lot we already know,” Dr. Sonia Angell, director of the California Department of Public Health, said in a statement. “We have been anticipating the potential for such a case in the U.S., and given our close familial, social and business relationships with China, it is not unexpected that the first case in the U.S. would be in California.”
It is not clear how the person became infected, but public health workers could not identify any contacts with people who had traveled to China or other areas where the virus is widespread. That raises concern that the virus is spreading in the United States, creating a challenge for public health officials, experts say.
“It’s the first signal that we could be having silent transmission in the community,” said Lawrence Gostin, director of the World Health Organization Collaborating Center on National and Global Health Law. “It probably means there are many more cases out there, and it probably means this individual has infected others, and now it’s a race to try to find out who that person has infected.”
On Tuesday, the CDC offered its most serious warning to date that the United States should expect and prepare for the coronavirus to become a more widespread health issue.
“Ultimately, we expect we will see coronavirus spread in this country,” said Nancy Messonnier, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. “It’s not so much a question of if, but a question of when.”
According to the CDC’s latest count Wednesday morning, 59 U.S. residents have tested positive for the new strain of coronavirus — 42 of whom are repatriated citizens from a Diamond Princess cruise. That number has grown by two since Messonnier’s last count Tuesday, although the CDC was not immediately available to offer details on the additional cases.
More than 82,000 cases of coronavirus have been reported globally, and more than 2,700 people have died, with the majority in mainland China, the epicenter of the outbreak.
But public health leaders have repeatedly reminded residents that the health risk from the novel coronavirus to the general public remains low.
“While COVID-19 has a high transmission rate, it has a low mortality rate,” the state Department of Public Health said in a statement Wednesday. “From the international data we have, of those who have tested positive for COVID-19, approximately 80% do not exhibit symptoms that would require hospitalization. There have been no confirmed deaths related to COVID-19 in the United States to date.”
CDC officials have also warned that although the virus is likely to spread in U.S. communities, the flu still poses a greater risk.
Gostin said the news of potential silent transmission does not eliminate the possibility of containing the virus in the U.S. and preventing an outbreak.
“There are few enough cases that we should at least try,” he said. “Most of us are not optimistic that that will be successful, but we’re still in the position to try.”
Originally Posted by Stryker:
Truth be known, this shit is for real. Too many take it for granted and lose in the end. Keep doubting it - you will be effected in one way or another before this is gone. #justsaying I see this daily on the front lines - it's not a joke.
Originally Posted by DaFace:
#whyareweusinghashtagsinnormalconversation
Not going to argue with a mod - not looking to be banned for BS. Bottom line, we are all Chiefs fans. I apologize for the # thing. I guess .02 does not matter any more on this board. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Stryker:
So, since I work for a hospital - we had to take a survey on whether or not we would take the vaccine when it becomes available. I sided with UNSURE. This is NOT a flu shot and I do not know what the ramifications of taking said shot will benefit or effect said recipient. #ONTHEFENCE I need proof that the "shot" is EFFECTIVE before I commit.
As a sincere and courteous question, what will it take to win you over? Three (or two if you discount the Astrazenica backstep) companies have produced results based on tests of 100,000 or so people, and apparently the FDA is going to approve it after reviewing that data.
So do you want to see a larger number take the vaccine without incident, and if so, how many more?
Or do you want to wait longer after the initial test to be sure there are no long-term implications? And if so, how long do you need to wait?
Or do you want to see people you know get it without incident so you can observe success with your own eyes?
Or is it something else?
I'm just curious if you've defined what will put you over the threshold to get it, and what that threshold is. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
As a sincere and courteous question, what will it take to win you over? Three (or two if you discount the Astrazenica backstep) companies have produced results based on tests of 100,000 or so people, and apparently the FDA is going to approve it after reviewing that data.
So do you want to see a larger number take the vaccine without incident, and if so, how many more?
Or do you want to wait longer after the initial test to be sure there are no long-term implications? And if so, how long do you need to wait?
Or do you want to see people you know get it without incident so you can observe success with your own eyes?
Or is it something else?
I'm just curious if you've defined what will put you over the threshold to get it, and what that threshold is.
I will gladly answer. It is not really a question of winning me over. It is a question of why now there is a miraculous 'cure" especially after the election. I am not concerned about a long term effect of said immunization but more so why now? If this was now the answer, then why are they so sure that this will work and all will be ok? How can one not be speculative as the immunization is the answer? I am on the fence in the fact that there is no positive proof yet, that said if the vaccine is reducing the "numbers". to me, when i see said vaccine is administered and the "numbers" decline, then I will be a believer. Just my .02 [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
As a sincere and courteous question, what will it take to win you over? Three (or two if you discount the Astrazenica backstep) companies have produced results based on tests of 100,000 or so people, and apparently the FDA is going to approve it after reviewing that data.
So do you want to see a larger number take the vaccine without incident, and if so, how many more?
Or do you want to wait longer after the initial test to be sure there are no long-term implications? And if so, how long do you need to wait?
Or do you want to see people you know get it without incident so you can observe success with your own eyes?
Or is it something else?
I'm just curious if you've defined what will put you over the threshold to get it, and what that threshold is.
Scratch that - bottom line - Is this a political move or is this a true solution. Hence, only time will tell. I will remain skeptical until the immunization is deployed and the over all numbers decrease. That is where I stand. Why I am on the fence - the proof is in the pudding. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Kidd Lex:
And a lot of us “rich” people have taken huge pay cuts (income down 30%) this year due to the pandemics affects on our businesses. A lot of us also work on the front lines and have to travel for work to keep business solvent. We receive zero dollars because “rich” 🙄
This extensive review report has been officially submitted to Eurosurveillance editorial board on 27th November 2020 via their submission-portal, enclosed to this review report is a retraction request letter, signed by all the main & co-authors. First and last listed names are the first and second main authors. All names in between are co-authors.
External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false positive results.
3. The number of amplification cycles (less than 35; preferably 25-30 cycles); In case of virus detection, >35 cycles only detects signals which do not correlate with infectious virus as determined by isolation in cell culture [reviewed in 2]; if someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the case in most laboratories in Europe & the US), the probability that said person is actually infected is less than 3%, the probability that said result is a false positive is 97% [reviewed in 3]
Consequently, in nearly all test procedures worldwide, merely 2 primer matches were used instead of all three. This oversight renders the entire test-protocol useless with regards to delivering accurate test-results of real significance in an ongoing pandemic.
Figure 1: The N-Gene confirmatory-assay is neither emphasized as necessary third step in the official WHO Drosten-Corman protocol-recommendation below [8] nor is it required as a crucial step for higher test-accuracy in the Eurosurveillance publication.
CONCLUSION
The decision as to which test protocols are published and made widely available lies squarely in the hands of Eurosurveillance. A decision to recognise the errors apparent in the Corman-Drosten paper has the benefit to greatly minimise human cost and suffering going forward.
Is it not in the best interest of Eurosurveillance to retract this paper? Our conclusion is clear. In the face of all the tremendous PCR-protocol design flaws and errors described here, we conclude: There is not much of a choice left in the framework of scientific integrity and responsibility.
Originally Posted by Stryker:
I will gladly answer. It is not really a question of winning me over. It is a question of why now there is a miraculous 'cure" especially after the election.
Originally Posted by Stryker:
I will gladly answer. It is not really a question of winning me over. It is a question of why now there is a miraculous 'cure" especially after the election. I am not concerned about a long term effect of said immunization but more so why now? If this was now the answer, then why are they so sure that this will work and all will be ok? How can one not be speculative as the immunization is the answer? I am on the fence in the fact that there is no positive proof yet, that said if the vaccine is reducing the "numbers". to me, when i see said vaccine is administered and the "numbers" decline, then I will be a believer. Just my .02
Willful idiot, got it.
“We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.” - Plato [Reply]
Originally Posted by : Do people who had already been infected by a virus needs the vaccine to it, if its the same strain?
There is a lot of half responses and some questionable information in this thread. I have a PhD in immunology and am an expert in antigen presentation, the process the immune system uses to generate specific T and B cell responses.
Really what your question comes down to is "Is natural immunity to a virus enough to protect you from subsequent infection." This varies depending on the virus, obvious examples are Chicken pox which produces life long immunity versus something like a common cold virus which produces little long term immunity (though there is a complication there in that common colds are caused by many different viruses but that point still stands). While the differences in long term immunity to these viruses is not completely understood it really comes down to the generation of memory cells which are able to respond to the virus upon secondary infection. These come in two major flavors which have been in the news a lot lately, B cells: which produce antibodies, and T cells: which both help B cells in generating antibodies and kill virally infected cells.
Since I assume you want to know about Covid let's discuss that. First off, while yes there are reports of people becoming re-infected with Covid these reports are very infrequent and major studies on long term antibody responses and even memory T cell responses have pointed to natural infection generating a durable immune response. The length of this durability is unknown since the virus is so new, but I believe we are going to be talking about it lasting on the order of at least a year to years, not on the order of months. Everything we have seen so far is consistent with a typical viral immune response, including the decreasing antibody titer in the short term after the virus is cleared and the generation of memory T and B cells that can restart the response if you were to get re-infected to a level that overcomes your serum antibody titers. The early studies about waning antibody levels were very overstated and their conclusions way too broad when considered based on basic immunological principles.
So back to the question, would that person need the vaccine? The correct answer is eventually but we don't know when. Because of this to my knowledge prior infection will not be taken into account when giving vaccinations (which it shouldn't). In a perfect world you would prioritize vaccinating people who have not gotten infected naturally. This would greatly increase your immunity coverage in the population in the short term while vaccines are in a limited supply. However, due to the poor availability and accuracy of tests for this virus I don't think anyone would truly trust someone saying that they have had the virus before, meaning we are better off just vaccinating everyone based on our susceptibility criteria to make sure those people are immune.
There is no reason to think that giving the vaccine to someone who has already had the virus would be harmful, and I believe some people who received the vaccine in the completed clinical trials were previously infected but I'm not 100% certain about that.
The other important question is how long vaccine immunity will last and the reality there is we also don't know. Again, it will likely be long lasting and Moderna's three month data was very promising, but we won't know how long it will last until we get that far out from the first people being vaccinated. There is not necessarily any correlation between the natural immune response and the vaccine generated response in terms of how long it will last because vaccines will activate the immune system differently from how the virus itself does it.
Now this is all for infection with the same strain or at least a strain containing the same major antigen (in this case the spike protein). Everything would become very different if another strain of coronavirus were to evolve or a significant mutation of the spike protein were to occur. Vaccine immunity will be generated only to the spike protein while there will be some additional immunity to other parts of the virus from a natural infection. However, these responses may be suboptimal and may not completely neutralize the virus. There is also a concept of "original antigenic sin" (which is complex and has become more controversial recently) but generally the idea is that the first virus of a type you are infected with shapes the response to those types of viruses and this may actually prevent your immune system from generating an appropriate response to a second similar virus. Either way all of that is theoretical now and likely will not come into play during this pandemic due to this virus' low mutation rate.
Originally Posted by Stryker:
It is not really a question of winning me over. It is a question of why now there is a miraculous 'cure" especially after the election.
You need to get your information from a different source. Just my $0.2 cents. [Reply]
Get Ready for False Side Effects
By Derek Lowe 4 December, 2020
We’re in the beginning of the vaccine endgame now: regulatory approval and actual distribution/rollout into the population. The data for the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines continue to look good (here’s a new report on the longevity of immune response after the Moderna one), with the J&J and Novavax efforts still to report. The AZ/Oxford candidate is more of a puzzle, thanks to some very poor communication about their clinical work (which suffered from some fundamental problems itself).
Now we have to get people to take them. Surveys continue to show a good number of people who are (at the very least) in the “why don’t you take it first” category. I tend to think that as vaccine dosing becomes reality that more people will get in line for a shot, but that remains to be seen. I wanted to highlight something that we’ll all need to keep in mind, though.
Bob Wachter of UCSF had a very good thread on Twitter about vaccine rollouts the other day, and one of the good points he made was this one. We’re talking about treating very, very large populations, which means that you’re going to see the usual run of mortality and morbidity that you see across large samples. Specifically, if you take 10 million people and just wave your hand back and forth over their upper arms, in the next two months you would expect to see about 4,000 heart attacks. About 4,000 strokes. Over 9,000 new diagnoses of cancer. And about 14,000 of that ten million will die, out of usual all-causes mortality. No one would notice. That’s how many people die and get sick anyway.
But if you took those ten million people and gave them a new vaccine instead, there’s a real danger that those heart attacks, cancer diagnoses, and deaths will be attributed to the vaccine. I mean, if you reach a large enough population, you are literally going to have cases where someone gets the vaccine and drops dead the next day (just as they would have if they *didn’t* get the vaccine). It could prove difficult to convince that person’s friends and relatives of that lack of connection, though. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is one of the most powerful fallacies of human logic, and we’re not going to get rid of it any time soon. Especially when it comes to vaccines. The best we can do, I think, is to try to get the word out in advance. Let people know that such things are going to happen, because people get sick and die constantly in this world. The key will be whether they are getting sick or dying at a noticeably higher rate once they have been vaccinated.
No such safety signals have appeared for the first vaccines to roll out (Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech). In fact, we should be seeing the exact opposite effects on mortality and morbidity as more and more people get vaccinated. The excess-death figures so far in the coronavirus pandemic have been appalling (well over 300,000 in the US), and I certainly think mass vaccination is the most powerful method we have to knock that back down to normal.
That’s going to be harder to do, though, if we get screaming headlines about people falling over due to heart attacks after getting their vaccine shots. Be braced. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Stryker:
So, since I work for a hospital - we had to take a survey on whether or not we would take the vaccine when it becomes available. I sided with UNSURE. This is NOT a flu shot and I do not know what the ramifications of taking said shot will benefit or effect said recipient. #ONTHEFENCE I need proof that the "shot" is EFFECTIVE before I commit.
Can we now stop posting anecdotals from rando hospital workers everyone seems to know these days? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Stryker:
I will gladly answer. It is not really a question of winning me over. It is a question of why now there is a miraculous 'cure" especially after the election. I am not concerned about a long term effect of said immunization but more so why now? If this was now the answer, then why are they so sure that this will work and all will be ok? How can one not be speculative as the immunization is the answer? I am on the fence in the fact that there is no positive proof yet, that said if the vaccine is reducing the "numbers". to me, when i see said vaccine is administered and the "numbers" decline, then I will be a believer. Just my .02
Why now? Because we finally got here. It isn't a secret that this has been in the works the entire time.
As for proof that the vaccines are effective, I believe that's what the data is for. Do you believe in the proof of people dying from COVID? I mean sure, the numbers are debatable but you have to know that lots of people are dying, right? I'll take my chances with the side effects of the vaccine versus the side effect of Covid in myself or a loved one. [Reply]
