Did you catch it ?

Palmpilot said:
The current death count for the U.S. is about 87,000. The population of the U.S. is about 330 million, so the deaths so far amount to about 0.026 percent of the population...
Click to expand...

And even that death count is artificially inflated. Granted, not to the level of the admittedly-amusing-to-me-and-I'm-embarrassed-to-say-so memes of fatalities due to being hit by a jet or eaten by a shark being attributed to COVID-19, but if someone who is suffering from a terminal or severe illness that would likely result in being an eventual cause of death contracts the virus (or the facility caring for that person wishes to receive extra funding), ba-da-boom, ba-da-bing.. it's a COVID-related death. NOT to marginalize the suffering to families when loved one pass away... a close friend of mine lost his brother AND his father in the same week recently, and his brother tested positive for COVID... absolutely devastating. We just need to constantly remind ourselves that COVID, in terms of being fatal, is MUCH more of a catalyst to pre-existing conditions than it is a primary cause of death.... to the nth degree. That fact can not be overstated.
 
Juliet Hotel said:
So what does any of that have to do with grocery workers dying? Are you saying that because that particular organization reported it, it therefore didn't happen? Would you like me to spend about 30 seconds with google and find sources of the same information that might be more to your liking?
Click to expand...

No. I just said be careful with the rag who’s owned by a guy with 24 billion reasons to keep his direct competition in selling everything from groceries to sporting goods, closed.
 
In the PHX metro area, 70% of CV deaths have been patients of "Long term Care facilities"(Primarily nursing homes, assisted living, etc.). (https://ktar.com/story/3157479/long-term-care-facilities-have-70-of-metro-phoenix-covid-19-deaths/)

Per this, roughly 65% of stays in such facilities are less than a year(https://www.geripal.org/2010/08/length-of-stay-in-nursing-homes-at-end.html)

Taken together, it infers a fairly large portion of the deaths likely would have occurred in the next six months to a year year without CV entering the picture.
 
denverpilot said:
No. I just said be careful with the rag who’s owned by a guy with 24 billion reasons to keep his direct competition in selling everything from groceries to sporting goods, closed.
Click to expand...
BBC is about the only news source I use to browse headlines. When I'm googling to find articles on a particular topic, about the only filters I use are 'is this a source that passes as news for a measurable segment of the population?' and 'is this known to be a source of satire or tabloid or 1000% dedicated to only one particular agenda besides news reporting?' That's it. If it doesn't fall into one of those categories, I consider it to be good enough for the girls I go with as far as a supporting news link goes.

If one of my choices for news happens to be owned by someone who doesn't particularly line up with your personal agenda choices, well I'll just have to find a way to make my peace with that I guess. :rolleyes:
 
Juliet Hotel said:
If one of my choices for news happens to be owned by someone who doesn't particularly line up with your personal agenda choices, well I'll just have to find a way to make my peace with that I guess. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any agenda I have. I have none.

Had to do with his agenda which is well documented and quite clear for many years before any dust in the wind illness came along.

To think he wouldn’t use any crisis to his advantage or any business he owns, simply ignores hundreds of years of human “news” publication history and publication owners.

I buy and use tons of the sociopath’s stuff. He’s very efficient at things.

All I said is exactly what I said. Be very careful with any source saying the competition is dangerous when their owner has 24 billion new dollars in his pocket from someone else saying so.

If you’ve read ANY thing else l I’ve posted, I’ve said the virus is coming for everybody through the supply chains. Guaranteed. Closing other things that can be as distances as the Super WalMart is just pretending one is safer than the other. The WalMart has already killed two here and infected over a dozen.

I did NOT ever say the article was WRONG. Read carefully.
 
denverpilot said:
Has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any agenda I have. I have none..
Click to expand...
I have a hard time believing that's true but whatever then, lets not call it an agenda. Lets instead call it a pre conceived bias. Fair enough?

It certainly seems you're more than willing to disregard anything certain news organizations say simply because you happen to have an issue with the actions of the owner of that news organization. If that's not the case, then why bring it up at all? Everyone has sources they trust and sources they don't exactly trust for whatever reason. Most of us keep those opinions to ourselves because we realize those opinions only apply to ourselves.
 
Juliet Hotel said:
I have a hard time believing that's true but whatever then, lets not call it an agenda. Lets instead call it a pre conceived bias. Fair enough?
.
Click to expand...


No, it's not fair. Not at all. Using the words "agenda" and "pre-conceived bias," with their implicit negative and insulting connotations, to explain another intelligent person with rational reasons for disagreeing with YOUR opinions and interpretations, does nothing but expose those properties inherent in yourself. Have a conversation. Debate intellectually and kindly. Explain your viewpoints, back them up with statistics, try to understand other's viewpoints, be open to the statistics they quote, and continue. Productive discourse. We all have pre-conceived biases...they are called opinions ("biases") based upon past experiences and knowledge ("pre"). Throwing out that label in an attempt to discredit an intelligent colleague who disagrees with you is unproductive and juvenile.
 
Juliet Hotel said:
I have a hard time believing that's true but whatever then, lets not call it an agenda. Lets instead call it a pre conceived bias. Fair enough?
Click to expand...


I believe Nate was demonstrating that the source may be biased. That's not necessarily bias on his part. In a courtroom trial, would you consider it reasonable to demonstrate that a witness may be biased in his testimony?
 
Half Fast said:
I believe Nate was demonstrating that the source may be biased. That's not necessarily bias on his part.
Click to expand...
I understood completely what Nate was saying. He believes the source may be bias. Yep, got it the first time. Nate doesn't like that particular news source for reasons that are his own. He's entitled to his reasons and I'm sure they're very valid. I offered to find a different source if it would make him happy. He declined. He's happy. I'm happy. Is there a reason this still needs to be discussed?
 
Juliet Hotel said:
I have a hard time believing that's true but whatever then, lets not call it an agenda. Lets instead call it a pre conceived bias. Fair enough?

It certainly seems you're more than willing to disregard anything certain news organizations say simply because you happen to have an issue with the actions of the owner of that news organization. If that's not the case, then why bring it up at all? Everyone has sources they trust and sources they don't exactly trust for whatever reason. Most of us keep those opinions to ourselves because we realize those opinions only apply to ourselves.
Click to expand...

I’m willing to disregard? I never said that. I literally said use caution.

Human history of publishing owners and their behaviors hasn’t changed.

I mentioned it because there’s 24 billion reasons for him to like an article over another, and staff tends to placate the boss everywhere any of us have ever worked, “news” outlet or McDonalds. LOL.

People warn similarly about the others and their owners, and clearly the others also tend to side with their owners. Well documented.

There’s no real “Fourth Estate” in the news business.

Someone not interested in Amazon or actively following the news about their actions might not know Amazon essentially owns that particular “news” outlet. Quite a few don’t make that connection.

We could talk about who owns the others if you like. They’re all owner biased. That’s not anything new. Rich people owning newspapers to sway public opinion, isn’t exactly “news”, one might say. :)

Me saying “watch that source” about a link you provided in public for discussion, isn’t really any skin off of your nose. WashPo is fine... pick any of them and whichever billionaire’s opinion one wants to read... all I was saying is that one is Bezos’ mouthpiece.

Not a big deal. Each is the mouthpiece for theirs. Pick whichever owner you like for your reading material. It was just a warning that WashPo is always going to be Amazon friendly.
 
denverpilot said:
I’m willing to disregard? I never said that. I literally said use caution.

Human history of publishing owners and their behaviors hasn’t changed.

I mentioned it because there’s 24 billion reasons for him to like an article over another, and staff tends to placate the boss everywhere any of us have ever worked, “news” outlet or McDonalds. LOL.

People warn similarly about the others and their owners, and clearly the others also tend to side with their owners. Well documented.

There’s no real “Fourth Estate” in the news business.

Someone not interested in Amazon or actively following the news about their actions might not know Amazon essentially owns that particular “news” outlet. Quite a few don’t make that connection.

We could talk about who owns the others if you like. They’re all owner biased. That’s not anything new. Rich people owning newspapers to sway public opinion, isn’t exactly “news”, one might say. :)

Me saying “watch that source” about a link you provided in public for discussion, isn’t really any skin off of your nose. WashPo is fine... pick any of them and whichever billionaire’s opinion one wants to read... all I was saying is that one is Bezos’ mouthpiece.

Not a big deal. Each is the mouthpiece for theirs. Pick whichever owner you like for your reading material. It was just a warning that WashPo is always going to be Amazon friendly.
Click to expand...

These reports are so pro Amazon:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/tech...-firings-warehouse-workers-climate-activists/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/05/01/amazon-instacart-workers-strike/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...648d52-8386-11ea-81a3-9690c9881111_story.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...0a5b90-7337-11ea-ad9b-254ec99993bc_story.html

OTOH, perhaps the reports could have been harsher if it wasn't WaPo.
 
Last edited:
denverpilot said:
I’m willing to disregard? I never said that. I literally said use caution.

Human history of publishing owners and their behaviors hasn’t changed.

I mentioned it because there’s 24 billion reasons for him to like an article over another, and staff tends to placate the boss everywhere any of us have ever worked, “news” outlet or McDonalds. LOL.

People warn similarly about the others and their owners, and clearly the others also tend to side with their owners. Well documented.

There’s no real “Fourth Estate” in the news business.

Someone not interested in Amazon or actively following the news about their actions might not know Amazon essentially owns that particular “news” outlet. Quite a few don’t make that connection.

We could talk about who owns the others if you like. They’re all owner biased. That’s not anything new. Rich people owning newspapers to sway public opinion, isn’t exactly “news”, one might say. :)

Me saying “watch that source” about a link you provided in public for discussion, isn’t really any skin off of your nose. WashPo is fine... pick any of them and whichever billionaire’s opinion one wants to read... all I was saying is that one is Bezos’ mouthpiece.

Not a big deal. Each is the mouthpiece for theirs. Pick whichever owner you like for your reading material. It was just a warning that WashPo is always going to be Amazon friendly.
Click to expand...
Noted. Trust me when I tell you I will NEVER post a link from that news source on this forum again. Just not worth it.
 
Juliet Hotel said:
Noted. Trust me when I tell you I will NEVER post a link from that news source on this forum again. Just not worth it.
Click to expand...

Why? It seems you took something about it personally. It’s a total nothing burger to discuss source’s biases online in any discussion forum. It’s no reflection on you that literally every source has a bias.
 
denverpilot said:
Why? It seems you took something about it personally. It’s a total nothing burger to discuss source’s biases online in any discussion forum. It’s no reflection on you that literally every source has a bias.
Click to expand...
Are there any news sources that you consider to be more trustworthy than others? If so, I'm curious to know what they are.
 
Palmpilot said:
Are there any news sources that you consider to be more trustworthy than others? If so, I'm curious to know what they are.
Click to expand...

Not really.

But “newsworthy” is different than “true” also.

Newsworthy is something that might actually be useful information. I’ve said for years and have practiced for years that the 5 minutes at the top of any hour on pretty much any radio station will cover everything most people need to actually know from non-specialized sources.

The time limit makes them get to the point and they get maybe 30 seconds of spin in, if that.

The vast majority of the rest of mainstream news isn’t news. It’s political entertainment. Almost no one needs to know 90% politics and 10% everything else in life around them. That’s what you get from most now.

Then there’s stuff you actually do. That varies by person but this group likely consumes way more than a normal share of aviation news. Airlines, regulatory, flying stories, whatever.

Other hobbies, work related stuff. Pretty much all significantly more “newsworthy” than babbling politicians trying to make the world of diversity into a two sided game of cults.

I do about quarterly get sucked into “business news” but learned long ago the million dollar a year plus pundits talking about it are usually wrong. If they weren’t, they wouldn’t be TV pundits for long. Ha. But the earnings releases are fun to play with numbers and see what they’re trying to hide/downplay.

And you can add entertainment by being allowed to play in the world’s largest legal casino, too.

There’s way too much to do in life, even in virus incarceration, to waste it on the media filming politicians at podiums. I’m amazed when there’s 150 people “covering” a press conference. Truly they’ve got nothing better that sells advertising anymore. Fear sells.

But they’re not even bright enough anymore to ask questions like, “Why are 46 Governors running the USA after the two week real emergent is over with? Where are the representatives at all levels?”

Too busy pretending they’re celebrities like a representative democracy should hang on their every word instead of telling them, “Thanks, sit down now. The State legislature will authorize you to keep your task force and take it from here.

I’d they ever get that smart again, that might be newsworthy. :) 150 people recording the same speech? Send one with a cell phone. Plenty. Two if you want another “dramatic camera angle”.
 
It seems obvious that pretty much all the decisions made by government types has been wrong and agenda driven.

Especially the closure of hospitals to non-COVID patients. That alone has skewed the highly distorted "statistics" used to perpetuate this disaster.
 
IK04 said:
Especially the closure of hospitals to non-COVID patients. That alone has skewed the highly distorted "statistics" used to perpetuate this disaster.
Click to expand...

Definitely.

Ours were never closed by political mandate.

They reopened for fully separated services on their own, including outpatient. In a *week*. Took two for people to show up because they were unreasonably afraid. The ER Docs were gravely concerned, now they’re getting angry at the lack of messaging to the public here.

Because, they’re the damn experts on that.

Anybody allowing their local politicians to keep empty hospitals closed by edict instead of letting the hospital handle that, shouldn’t be.

It’s beyond stupidity.

Mayo is open next week. That’s no small feat.
 
I'm really surprised (and disappointed) by how we as a nation are handling this. Testing and information/informed discussions about immunity seem lacking.

Testing:

As bad as I thought the data was a couple of weeks ago, it's worse now, if anything. Some folks think the coronavirus deaths and cases are overcounted, some think they're undercounted. We can all agree the counts are wrong. (I strongly suspect there's a significant undercount of deaths, but the main thing is that the reporting is so inconsistent from state to state it's hard to tell.)

Consider the testing count and "confirmed cases" count. State governments now are under extreme pressure to show:
  • Increasing testing rates
  • Decreasing positive test rates (as a fraction of tests given)
  • Decreasing new confirmed cases

Here's an example of what a state *could* do:
  • With the new-ish availability of antibody tests, a state could combine the antibody test count and the viral test count to show an increasing test rate.
  • At the same time, they could only report the positives from the viral tests (with the logic that that's the one that tells you about current cases, as opposed to how many have been infected in the past.)
  • If the actual number of viral tests is decreasing (remember, this hypothetical state would be reporting the sum of the viral tests AND the antibody tests, so you wouldn't know if the viral test count was going down), then you'd even show the confirmed new case count going down.
And then "whoo hooo!" you'd be ready to reopen!!
​
Are states actually doing that? Who knows. Virginia did a piece of it, and it looks like Texas may be doing all of it. It's a nice way to pretend you're using data to drive your decisions (instead of the other way around.) The only real way to sort out what kind of shape we're in is how full the ICUs are - and in most places we're not in too bad shape, so maybe we'll be ok. Or maybe not. A lot of the states that have moved to reopen may not have even approached their peaks yet, and may actually cross that threshold. Hope not.​

Immunity:

I'm not a medical doctor or biologist, so am probably ill informed. But this is the interweb, so I'll post away. We've heard two things that may be important:
  • People who have been infected (tested positive, recovered, tested negative) have been infected again. Either the tests are no good (making the data problem worse) or antibodies don't offer protection against reinfection.
  • This type of virus is similar to the viruses that cause the common cold, and we've never been able to vaccinate against that.
Does this mean we won't be able to get a vaccine to work effectively, or that we'll never get to "herd immunity"? That'd be a crapper. This idea has come up on threads like this, but I haven't seen anything like a plan/backup plan for going to a "new normal" where we have years maybe of societal interactions conducted in a way where we throttle the spread of this thing enough not to overwhelm hospitals. And as folks have said - it's really the hospital Covid load-to-capacity ratio that matters, almost all this other stuff is noise.​

So, from my view, things may not look good for this summer and fall.
 
Last edited:
TonyG said:
I'm really surprised (and disappointed) by how we as a nation are handling this. Testing and information/informed discussions about immunity seem lacking.

Testing:

As bad as I thought the data was a couple of weeks ago, it's worse now, if anything. Some folks think the coronavirus deaths and cases are overcounted, some think they're undercounted. We can all agree the counts are wrong. (I strongly suspect there's a significant undercount of deaths, but the main thing is that the reporting is so inconsistent from state to state it's hard to tell.)

Consider the testing count and "confirmed cases" count. State governments now are under extreme pressure to show:
  • Increasing testing rates
  • Decreasing positive test rates (as a fraction of tests given)
  • Decreasing new confirmed cases

Here's an example of what a state *could* do:
  • With the new-ish availability of antibody tests, a state could combine the antibody test count and the viral test count to show an increasing test rate.
  • At the same time, they could only report the positives from the viral tests (with the logic that that's the one that tells you about current cases, as opposed to how many have been infected in the past.)
  • If the actual number of viral tests is decreasing (remember, this hypothetical state would be reporting the sum of the viral tests AND the antibody tests, so you wouldn't know if the viral test count was going down), then you'd even show the confirmed new case count going down.
And then "whoo hooo!" you'd be ready to reopen!!
​
Are states actually doing that? Who knows. Virginia did a piece of it, and it looks like Texas may be doing all of it. It's a nice way to pretend you're using data to drive your decisions (instead of the other way around.) The only real way to sort out what kind of shape we're in is how full the ICUs are - and in most places we're not in too bad shape, so maybe we'll be ok. Or maybe not. A lot of the states that have moved to reopen may not have even approached their peaks yet, and may actually cross that threshold. Hope not.​

Immunity:

I'm not a medical doctor or biologist, so am probably ill informed. But this is the interweb, so I'll post away. We've heard two things that may be important:
  • People who have been infected (tested positive, recovered, tested negative) have been infected again. Either the tests are no good (making the data problem worse) or antibodies don't offer protection against reinfection.
  • This type of virus is similar to the viruses that cause the common cold, and we've never been able to vaccinate against that.
Does this mean we won't be able to get a vaccine to work effectively, or that we'll never get to "herd immunity"? That'd be a crapper. This idea has come up on threads like this, but I haven't seen anything like a plan/backup plan for going to a "new normal" where we have years maybe of societal interactions conducted in a way where we throttle the spread of this thing enough not to overwhelm hospitals. And as folks have said - it's really the hospital Covid load-to-capacity ratio that matters, almost all this other stuff is noise.​

So, from my view, things may not look good for this summer and fall.
Click to expand...
I just saw an article about that:

State and Federal Data on COVID-19 Testing Don’t Match Up
The CDC has quietly started releasing nationwide numbers. But they contradict what states themselves are reporting.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/05/cdc-publishing-covid-19-test-data/611764/

Also, from Colorado:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/colorado-gov-pushes-back-against-cdcs-coronavirus-death-counts
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
One thing I haven't heard much about till now is the status of covid-19 in Russia.

Putin's coronavirus crisis deepens with fatal hospital fire and spokesman's diagnosis

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/12/europe/russia-fire-coronavirus-patients-intl/index.html

Spokesman for Russian President Vladimir Putin hospitalized with coronavirus
Though the COVID-19 outbreak was slow to spread in Russia, the country has in recent weeks seen growth rates explode.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/...dimir-putin-hospitalized-coronavirus-n1205141

Russian president’s spokesman hospitalized with coronavirus

https://apnews.com/0e8858138ffa9082bff09b960a3217ce
Click to expand...

Palmpilot said:
"Russia has confirmed 232,000 cases of coronavirus - the second highest toll in the world after the US."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-52631045
Click to expand...

More on Russia's epidemic:

Coronavirus has devastated Moscow. Now it's spreading across Russia's 11 time zones to ill-funded regions

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/17/europe/russia-coronavirus-time-zones-intl/index.html
 
Palmpilot said:
I just saw an article about that:

State and Federal Data on COVID-19 Testing Don’t Match Up
The CDC has quietly started releasing nationwide numbers. But they contradict what states themselves are reporting.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/05/cdc-publishing-covid-19-test-data/611764/

Also, from Colorado:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/colorado-gov-pushes-back-against-cdcs-coronavirus-death-counts
Click to expand...

Colorado reversed 300 deaths relatively quietly on “take out the trash Friday” as not Covid caused.

Whether CDC removes them is probably a Monday thing.

One guy was diagnosed and decided to go home and drink himself to death. Clearly suicide, but “Covid caused” I’d say is a stretch.

Also fairly impressive resolve. I’m going with “mental health problem”.
 
Palmpilot said:
I just saw an article about that:

State and Federal Data on COVID-19 Testing Don’t Match Up
The CDC has quietly started releasing nationwide numbers. But they contradict what states themselves are reporting.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/05/cdc-publishing-covid-19-test-data/611764/
Click to expand...

Personally, I think way too much emphasis is being placed on testing. My thinking is more along the lines of this article:

https://www.statnews.com/2020/05/15/covid-19-testing-for-all-isnt-right-strategy-moving-ahead/

I've lived through a lot of epidemics and pandemics, and have never been asked to submit to a test for any of them before. Either I got the disease in question or I didn't. I fail to understand what makes this one so different.

Other than for statistical analysis (for which they've already done enough tests), or for certain professions where close contact is unavoidable, I think PCR testing of asymptomatic people is a particular waste of time and money due to the ephemeral validity of the test results and the large number of false positives and negatives. Even assuming more accuracy than the tests have shown they deserve, there's no guarantee that a person who tests negative today won't be positive tomorrow. Unless they want to test people daily, there's really not much of a point to it.

Antibody testing would be somewhat more useful because at least the result won't change half an hour later. It makes more sense to exclude someone as a silent spreader for at least a year than for half an hour. A positive titer also would eliminate the need to test the same person over and over again, saving resources for those who are symptomatic, vulnerable, or in high-risk professions.

Of course, a large number of positive antibody tests in asymptomatic people would also lower the morbidity and mortality rates, which would give more ammunition to those of us who maintain that the response to this virus has been ridiculously exaggerated and ass-backwards. Not that public policy for dealing with a pandemic would ever be affected by political considerations, of course. :rolleyes1:

I read in a local (sort of) news Web site that New York State is expanding test eligibility to anyone who believes that they may have been in close contact with someone who has the virus, and is waiving the requirement for a physician referral. Based on that loose definition, anyone who's been out of their house can just call and schedule a test. Their supply of tests now exceeds the demand, so they're trying to test more people.

That would be all well and good except that the state is still not clear on who's responsible for paying for the tests; and knowing New York State, I wouldn't be at all surprised to get a bill for more than my car's sticker price for a test that Quest will do for $100.00.

I'll wait until the county Public Health Nurse comes knocking. I trust my county government's integrity. New York State's, not so much.

Rich
 
Palmpilot said:
Maybe they think that the low percentage of people with antibodies means that few people have developed immunity to the virus. :dunno:
Click to expand...

I'm no doc or scientist but pretty sure you need to be exposed to the virus to develop anti-bodies, I'm happy to correct the record if I'm wrong.
 
NHWannabe said:
I'm no doc or scientist but pretty sure you need to be exposed to the virus to develop anti-bodies, I'm happy to correct the record if I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

Exactly. They impose restrictions that make it impossible for herd immunity to develop; and then when the tests reveal a lack of herd immunity, they prolong the restrictions that prevented it from happening. Makes perfect sense if your goal is to prolong a pandemic.

Rich
 
NHWannabe said:
I'm no doc or scientist but pretty sure you need to be exposed to the virus to develop anti-bodies, I'm happy to correct the record if I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

Vaccines work by exposing you to something that isn’t quite the virus, to develop antibodies. So... you can develop antibodies without direct virus contact...

The world is grey. The body is weird and amazing.

There’s a very early study now showing significant T-Cell involvement (well there almost always is) and a change in T-cells after someone is known to have been infected.

That’s a completely different pathway to possibly controlling how the body reacts to the thing.

T-cells aren’t involved in the antibody part, they’re more like the cheerleaders who yell at other cells to get on it. (Horrible analogy but anyway...)

Of course all of this has been studied about other coronaviruses for a very long time. Even with all the hubbub and attention and money, the likelihood this one will be cracked is pretty slim. It’ll be a bolt from the blue event.

Most people don’t get full immunity from the other coronaviruses either, so we’re likely looking at that as a standard path to plan for.

Anybody who has whatever is causing the really bad reaction to the thing, is probably going to have a very bad time of it over the next couple of years. Death most likely.

That’s the other major study effort is just how to mellow our body’s response in the lungs, or alternatively ramp up the immune responses that actually kill the bigger before it can trigger the nasty respiratory reaction.

I wouldn’t be placing any bets on a vaccine in Vegas anytime this year. Personally I wouldn’t place that bet next year either.

People tend to forget coronaviruses aren’t new. Not by a long shot. One of the many things we call “the common cold” is one.

You’re not wrong, it’s just immensely more complex. ;)
 
denverpilot said:
Vaccines work by exposing you to something that isn’t quite the virus, to develop antibodies. So... you can develop antibodies without direct virus contact...

The world is grey. The body is weird and amazing.


You’re not wrong, it’s just immensely more complex. ;)
Click to expand...

So in the case of the Boston mayor, sans any vaccine I'm guessing the only other way to develop antibodies is direct contact, hence the circular logic of him saying lack of people with anti-bodies means Boston needs to remain in lockdown?
 
RJM62 said:
Exactly. They impose restrictions that make it impossible for herd immunity to develop; and then when the tests reveal a lack of herd immunity, they prolong the restrictions that prevented it from happening. Makes perfect sense if your goal is to prolong a pandemic.

Rich
Click to expand...
As I understand it, the public-health purpose in prolonging the pandemic is to keep the peak of the cases-vs-time curve from exceeding the capability of the health-care system to cope with it. So far, it appears that most localities have achieved that goal, but some just barely.
 
Another potential path:

If 80% of Americans Wore Masks, COVID-19 Infections Would Plummet, New Study Says
There’s compelling evidence that Japan, Hong Kong, and other East Asian locales are doing it right and we should really, truly mask up—fast.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/05/masks-covid-19-infections-would-plummet-new-study-says

The study:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2004.13553.pdf

I also posted the abstract in another thread:

https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/to-mask-or-not-to-mask.124591/page-8#post-2919359
 
Last edited:
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top