ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 1535 of 3045
« First < 535103514351485152515311532153315341535 153615371538153915451585163520352535 > Last »
The Dumbass Lounge>***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]
'Hamas' Jenkins 10:42 AM 04-20-2020
Originally Posted by O.city:
With the testing issues and the actualities of the virus, we don't even know who has this thing.

I just don't see unless testing is scaled to a massive level what good it really does. Until the positive tests compared to the tests we're doing gets down around 1%, we're catching like a fraction of the virus.
You're right. The scaling over the last three weeks has been a massive failure. I'm also highly skeptical of the initial reports on antibody tests. The information that came out from the Santa Clara study on antibodies claimed the test had 99.5% specificity, which is almost certainly horseshit.
[Reply]
'Hamas' Jenkins 10:48 AM 04-20-2020
Originally Posted by DaFace:
You've read more than I have - is the reliability of the serology tests an issue? I've seen some suggestions that some of the antibody tests are turning out to be junk, but I don't have a feel for how big of an issue it is.
Let's say that I want an antibody test to do a really good job of identifying potential carriers. If I make it extremely sensitive, it will flag a lot of different kinds of antibodies. The problem is that there are multiple different kinds of coronaviruses, and as the studies have not been subjected to peer review yet, it's difficult to determine how narrow these positive results are.

The second issue is that even if someone has antibodies for a virus, it does not necessarily mean they are neutralizing antibodies either.
[Reply]
KCChiefsFan88 10:50 AM 04-20-2020
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
There is a distinct possibility that a viable vaccine never results
Wouldn’t this be the first coronavirus for which a vaccine was created (assuming a vaccine is actually developed)?

The other coronaviruses have either been too minor (i.e. the common cold) to justify a vaccine or have essentially burned themselves out such as SARS and MERS.
[Reply]
TLO 10:53 AM 04-20-2020
There always seems to be a swift kick in the balls for any potential good news that comes out.
[Reply]
IowaHawkeyeChief 10:56 AM 04-20-2020
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
You're right. The scaling over the last three weeks has been a massive failure. I'm also highly skeptical of the initial reports on antibody tests. The information that came out from the Santa Clara study on antibodies claimed the test had 99.5% specificity, which is almost certainly horseshit.
How has the testing been a failure? Are you talking anitbody testing or general testing?

Also,

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01095-0

Interesting article on the Santa Clara testing, it appears the test was extremely accurate based on science, however, there is legitimate concern of bias on those being tested.
[Reply]
'Hamas' Jenkins 10:57 AM 04-20-2020
Originally Posted by KCChiefsFan88:
Wouldn’t this be the first coronavirus for which a vaccine was created (assuming a vaccine is actually developed)?

The other coronaviruses have either been too minor (i.e. the common cold) to justify a vaccine or have essentially burned themselves out such as SARS and MERS.
The issue with SARS, from what I read, is that the vaccination process proved incredibly difficult because the target cells were epithelial cells in the upper respiratory tract, which were harder to stimulate an effective immune response from. The result when tried in animals is that the vaccine candidates actually made the disease worse.

Unfortunately, people tend to overstate the ease in vaccine development because of the high profile successes we've had with polio, MMR, and smallpox. It's why Margaret Heckler, when she was head of HHS in 1983, claimed that we would have a vaccine for HIV in 18 months. Well, 37 years later, where are we?
[Reply]
Donger 10:58 AM 04-20-2020
Originally Posted by KCChiefsFan88:
Wouldn’t this be the first coronavirus for which a vaccine was created (assuming a vaccine is actually developed)?

The other coronaviruses have either been too minor (i.e. the common cold) to justify a vaccine or have essentially burned themselves out such as SARS and MERS.
No. They created a vaccine for SARS v1.0 Not sure about MERS.
[Reply]
'Hamas' Jenkins 10:59 AM 04-20-2020
Originally Posted by IowaHawkeyeChief:
How has the testing been a failure? Are you talking anitbody testing or general testing?

Also,

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01095-0

Interesting article on the Santa Clara testing, it appears the test was extremely accurate based on science, however, there is legitimate concern of bias on those being tested.
Read my posts, please. As I said before, this information has not yet been peer-reviewed, so we know very little of their methodology. That is extremely important.
[Reply]
O.city 11:00 AM 04-20-2020

On the Covid treatment beat with @RobertLangreth: Regeneron’s antibody drug cocktail could be tested in humans by summer and saving lives by fall https://t.co/MuXK8iPgjg via @BW

— Susan Berfield (@susanberfield) April 20, 2020

[Reply]
IowaHawkeyeChief 11:00 AM 04-20-2020
Originally Posted by DaFace:
Again, the issue is that it just doesn't pass the sniff test. If 32% were exposed, that means that tripling the number of deaths per capita should yield a maximum per-capita death rate. But according to Covidly, Massachusetts is at 251 compared to New York at 924. It's hard to reconcile that, though I know that things are still settling out.
You wouldn't triple the death count, this would just lower the CFR/IFR for Boston area. NYC/NJ is interesting, they say a lot of exposure came from European visitors in Late Feb/Early March and they are counting deaths that may be speculative in their Covid-19 count. They are starting a rigorous antibody test study. It should help determine, along with historical death rates by cause, why they are such an outlier.
[Reply]
O.city 11:01 AM 04-20-2020
Originally Posted by IowaHawkeyeChief:
How has the testing been a failure? Are you talking anitbody testing or general testing?

Also,

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01095-0

Interesting article on the Santa Clara testing, it appears the test was extremely accurate based on science, however, there is legitimate concern of bias on those being tested.
We're still having a positive rate of 20% or so. That means were not testing nearly enough people to know where the infection is.
[Reply]
O.city 11:02 AM 04-20-2020
The Stanford test definitely has some not so good parameters that were set up.
[Reply]
IowaHawkeyeChief 11:06 AM 04-20-2020
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
Read my posts, please. As I said before, this information has not yet been peer-reviewed, so we know very little of their methodology. That is extremely important.


Don't be so defensive, this isn't DC. I was sharing information on the Stanford study I read this morning. I said it was an interesting article. It goes into way more details on methodology and the actual test on the Santa Clara study than any other article I've read, specifically on how they confirmed the accuracy of the test. I even agreed that their could be other biases based on the controlled group, that could effect the data as well. I was hoping you would actually read it and give us your thoughts.
[Reply]
TLO 11:08 AM 04-20-2020
Originally Posted by O.city:
The Stanford test definitely has some not so good parameters that were set up.
I read about that too.
[Reply]
IowaHawkeyeChief 11:14 AM 04-20-2020
Originally Posted by O.city:
We're still having a positive rate of 20% or so. That means were not testing nearly enough people to know where the infection is.

This is because we are testing mostly people with symptoms or who have had contacts with those who tested positive. As Dr. Fauci stated, testing those who show no symptoms is good for that 1 day and it is unrealistic to test people every day. Antibody testing and contract tracing will be much more important going forward.
[Reply]
Page 1535 of 3045
« First < 535103514351485152515311532153315341535 153615371538153915451585163520352535 > Last »
Up