My comments were not anything political - please don't derail with politics and the economy. I simply stated using an example, albeit with a different virus, that surviving is not always going back to life as normal. It was an example based on Doc Rev's comment.GaryClare said:I believe everyone recognizes this is a very bad situation and it is going to bad for countless people. The frustration from many is the pointless policies that are only prolonging the inevitable. European news is reporting that the virus has mutated 30 times since January. If that is correct there will never be an effective vaccine, there will never be a cure and everyone will get it every year. That could well be our reality. Hopefully it is the opposite and we have millions who have contracted this with no symptoms, it has not mutated and we can get a vaccine (hopefully without too much mercury or formaldehyde) and a cure. The thing frustrating to many - everything we are doing now is useless and it's bankrupting America.Old RV Ag said:This is what bothers me a lot - everyone assumes this disease is binary in outcomes. About 15 years ago, my beautiful early 30s niece contracted West Nile. She developed encephalitis and was hospitalized for months. It left her paralyzed in her legs and one arm. Speech was also affected. Well, with lots of work she can walk with a walker, taught herself to write with the other unaffected hand, and to speak again. She lost her daughter, as she was only 4 at the time and my niece obviously couldn't raise her, so she was raised by her grandmother. Yes, she survived, but that virus essentially destroyed her life.Reveille said:Yes unfortunately he would be considered recovered but that is something that is not being said. Many people who have "recovered" or a better word survived are not and likely will not ever be the same. They are being lost in the coverage. I mentioned it a month or so ago and will probably touch on it again soon.3rd Generation Ag said:
I am sceptical of the recovered numbers. A youngish ( late 40 something) man from one of my hometowns was hospitalized in critical condition with this for a couple of weeks. He now tests negative so would be considered recoverd. He is being moved to a long term care facitliy because although he is now negative for the virus he has lost substantial lung function, has had to have a trache, and his wife is now on facebook asking for prayers for recovery of his lung function so he can resume life has it was before the virus. So I am not sure he will ever really recover.
While people survive the disease they are sometimes left with a significant decrease in lung, heart, kidney and even liver functions. Only time will tell but I would venture to guess most of these will permanently disabled.
Covid-19 Update Aggie Physician
1,271,015 Views |
3660 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by tamc91
Player To Be Named Later
Joined:
Sep 22, 2003
Posts:
22,921
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
GaryClare said:
European news is reporting that the virus has mutated 30 times since January. If that is correct there will never be an effective vaccine, there will never be a cure and everyone will get it every year. That could well be our reality.
Everything I've read from medical folks on this board are that the mutations this thing has undergone have been pretty minor and irrelevant to whether we can create a vaccine or not. My understanding is that the mutations have not been located in critical areas of the virus' RNA, thus a vaccine is still possible.
Old RV Ag said:My comments were not anything political - please don't derail with politics and the economy. I simply stated using an example, albeit with a different virus, that surviving is not always going back to life as normal. It was an example based on Doc Rev's comment.GaryClare said:I believe everyone recognizes this is a very bad situation and it is going to bad for countless people. The frustration from many is the pointless policies that are only prolonging the inevitable. European news is reporting that the virus has mutated 30 times since January. If that is correct there will never be an effective vaccine, there will never be a cure and everyone will get it every year. That could well be our reality. Hopefully it is the opposite and we have millions who have contracted this with no symptoms, it has not mutated and we can get a vaccine (hopefully without too much mercury or formaldehyde) and a cure. The thing frustrating to many - everything we are doing now is useless and it's bankrupting America.Old RV Ag said:This is what bothers me a lot - everyone assumes this disease is binary in outcomes. About 15 years ago, my beautiful early 30s niece contracted West Nile. She developed encephalitis and was hospitalized for months. It left her paralyzed in her legs and one arm. Speech was also affected. Well, with lots of work she can walk with a walker, taught herself to write with the other unaffected hand, and to speak again. She lost her daughter, as she was only 4 at the time and my niece obviously couldn't raise her, so she was raised by her grandmother. Yes, she survived, but that virus essentially destroyed her life.Reveille said:Yes unfortunately he would be considered recovered but that is something that is not being said. Many people who have "recovered" or a better word survived are not and likely will not ever be the same. They are being lost in the coverage. I mentioned it a month or so ago and will probably touch on it again soon.3rd Generation Ag said:
I am sceptical of the recovered numbers. A youngish ( late 40 something) man from one of my hometowns was hospitalized in critical condition with this for a couple of weeks. He now tests negative so would be considered recoverd. He is being moved to a long term care facitliy because although he is now negative for the virus he has lost substantial lung function, has had to have a trache, and his wife is now on facebook asking for prayers for recovery of his lung function so he can resume life has it was before the virus. So I am not sure he will ever really recover.
While people survive the disease they are sometimes left with a significant decrease in lung, heart, kidney and even liver functions. Only time will tell but I would venture to guess most of these will permanently disabled.
There wasn't anything political in his response.
You're post was essentially we need to talk about the other impacts of the virus, not just death or survival. Then you complain when he discusses the economic impacts of the virus. Whether you want to admit it or not, the economic impacts of this virus is just as important to the health of Americans as the virus itself. Our Healthcare system, mental health, and in many cases people's physical health are being altered by the economic impact of the virus.
Food banks are now one of the largest buyers of commodities today now that restaurants are closed. There were 4000 vehicles in line for the Houston food bank this last weekend alone. Suicides are on the rise from lost jobs and depression from isolation. Hospitals are cutting staff and compensation for care workers not directly involved with the virus. Patients are going without hip and knee replacements.
That's life as we know it today. I personally think it is almost criminal that none of that seems to be reported on as an impact of the virus because it's impacting more people daily than the virus itself.
Doc:Reveille said:
Today's update!
https://www.facebook.com/1998386763777604/posts/2676080496008224/?sfnsn=mo
Thank you for all of your tireless efforts to keep us informed--going above and beyond caring for your own patients (which it is clear you do). In regards to the study referenced, in order for it to be valid from a scientific standpoint, the comorbidities would need to be compared to the non-COVID population. The authors are essentially explaining a constant (have the disease) with variables (diseases/conditions). If those variables are similar in the general public than there is no causal mechanism implied. I skimmed the article and did not see that addressed, but it could be in there. If not, it would be a relatively easy extension of the paper for those in the field. That said, it passed peer-review at a top journal; so, maybe I'm picking at nits. Not trying to attack you AT ALL. I need to get in better shape and was before I lost my gym and eat started eating all day
.
I would like to see data on how many recovered have long term issues or the potential for them down the road. I'm not skeptical that it is an issue but want to understand if this anecdotal or not.
Every disease has severe effects for parts of the infected but "recovered" population but at what rate/level?
It is early to have those details but I know directly or friend of a friend probably 30+ folks that have had it. Nobody has died and a couple thought they would need to go to the hospital maybe but didn't. I know nobody at severe risk who has had it. Most are under the age of 45, etc. I'm not naive, I know that many under 45 folks are getting really sick.
My data is anecdotal at best but no less anecdotal than someone knowing 1 person who had issues or long term issues for folks that have had a severe enough case to require hospitalization.
I know if I were a doc/nurse in any hospital but especially a hard hit area I would have a particularly bleak/dark outlook and God knows I don't blame them. They've been at war with this SOB virus, sometimes fighting with the equivalent of sticks and doing a damned fine job IMO. Seriously I think we should exempt every medical professional fighting this from taxes for 3-5 years. At the same time, there are millions that have had this and we can't make systemic decisions based on anecdotes.
My perception is that any data point that shows severity is pushed aggressively and made available and any data point that can show recovery or optimism is obfuscated. Be it death rates for those under the age of 50 or numbers of deaths by 10 year age group. Death in general is measured per 100k vs. say actual numbers by age group. You can find some of that data but its not nearly as widely transmitted.
I don't believe this is a conspiracy so much as a way to emphasize the severity to less at risk populations to distance properly. But at some point we have to come out of the bunker and acknowledge the risks of remaining in said bunker too long....
I know there are risks for every age group but we need to start being transparent on what those risks really are and I don't think we are doing that yet for whatever reason.
Every disease has severe effects for parts of the infected but "recovered" population but at what rate/level?
It is early to have those details but I know directly or friend of a friend probably 30+ folks that have had it. Nobody has died and a couple thought they would need to go to the hospital maybe but didn't. I know nobody at severe risk who has had it. Most are under the age of 45, etc. I'm not naive, I know that many under 45 folks are getting really sick.
My data is anecdotal at best but no less anecdotal than someone knowing 1 person who had issues or long term issues for folks that have had a severe enough case to require hospitalization.
I know if I were a doc/nurse in any hospital but especially a hard hit area I would have a particularly bleak/dark outlook and God knows I don't blame them. They've been at war with this SOB virus, sometimes fighting with the equivalent of sticks and doing a damned fine job IMO. Seriously I think we should exempt every medical professional fighting this from taxes for 3-5 years. At the same time, there are millions that have had this and we can't make systemic decisions based on anecdotes.
My perception is that any data point that shows severity is pushed aggressively and made available and any data point that can show recovery or optimism is obfuscated. Be it death rates for those under the age of 50 or numbers of deaths by 10 year age group. Death in general is measured per 100k vs. say actual numbers by age group. You can find some of that data but its not nearly as widely transmitted.
I don't believe this is a conspiracy so much as a way to emphasize the severity to less at risk populations to distance properly. But at some point we have to come out of the bunker and acknowledge the risks of remaining in said bunker too long....
I know there are risks for every age group but we need to start being transparent on what those risks really are and I don't think we are doing that yet for whatever reason.
It is way too early to know the long term effects of this disease. And we need to be clear that I would venture to guess over 95% will have a complete recovery. It will likely only be relevant to to the 5% or so that had severe disease and were in the hospital or ICU for extended times. But I think when we find out the true mortality is less than 1 percent and I have guessed in the 0.3 to 0.7 range we have to remember that there is still possibly another 5% or so that have long term issues.Knucklesammich said:
I would like to see data on how many recovered have long term issues or the potential for them down the road. I'm not skeptical that it is an issue but want to understand if this anecdotal or not.
Every disease has severe effects for parts of the infected but "recovered" population but at what rate/level?
It is early to have those details but I know directly or friend of a friend probably 30+ folks that have had it. Nobody has died and a couple thought they would need to go to the hospital maybe but didn't. I know nobody at severe risk who has had it. Most are under the age of 45, etc. I'm not naive, I know that many under 45 folks are getting really sick.
My data is anecdotal at best but no less anecdotal than someone knowing 1 person who had issues or long term issues for folks that have had a severe enough case to require hospitalization.
I know if I were a doc/nurse in any hospital but especially a hard hit area I would have a particularly bleak/dark outlook and God knows I don't blame them. They've been at war with this SOB virus, sometimes fighting with the equivalent of sticks and doing a damned fine job IMO. Seriously I think we should exempt every medical professional fighting this from taxes for 3-5 years. At the same time, there are millions that have had this and we can't make systemic decisions based on anecdotes.
My perception is that any data point that shows severity is pushed aggressively and made available and any data point that can show recovery or optimism is obfuscated. Be it death rates for those under the age of 50 or numbers of deaths by 10 year age group. Death in general is measured per 100k vs. say actual numbers by age group. You can find some of that data but its not nearly as widely transmitted.
I don't believe this is a conspiracy so much as a way to emphasize the severity to less at risk populations to distance properly. But at some point we have to come out of the bunker and acknowledge the risks of remaining in said bunker too long....
I know there are risks for every age group but we need to start being transparent on what those risks really are and I don't think we are doing that yet for whatever reason.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Great insight thanks for all the hard work educating us, its appreciated more than you know.
Doctor Coates - I can't thank you enough for these updates. I look forward to them every day. It's so hard to get just straight facts from news media. A request - can you please also include Tarrant County in your daily numbers? Thanks so much!
Player To Be Named Later
Joined:
Sep 22, 2003
Posts:
22,921
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I know at least two of our Aggie docs on here have stated that they believe the current mutation rate and where in the virus the mutations are will not affect the ability to create a vaccine. But I'm just an ag major rube.... so take that for what it's worth
GaryClare said:I hope that is correct. I would be interested in hearing from the experts on the board on if the mutation is factually occurring, is it not mutating much at all or if it is only mutating "slowly" and in a manner that would make it easier to produce an effective vaccine. It seems like there are equal opinions from what appears to be credible news sources supporting each scenario.Player To Be Named Later said:GaryClare said:
European news is reporting that the virus has mutated 30 times since January. If that is correct there will never be an effective vaccine, there will never be a cure and everyone will get it every year. That could well be our reality.
Everything I've read from medical folks on this board are that the mutations this thing has undergone have been pretty minor and irrelevant to whether we can create a vaccine or not. My understanding is that the mutations have not been located in critical areas of the virus' RNA, thus a vaccine is still possible.
IF this has mutated 30 times since January, is there any chance of an effective vaccine? What is the difference between a mutation, an antigenic drift and an antigenic shift? Are drifts and shifts considered mutations? I am not an expert, but I understand a antigenic drift is less consequential and a antigenic shift is more consequential. I also understand that the regular flu typically drifts and animal originating viruses typically ****s. IF all of this is correct and we cannot accurately predict an antigenic drift and subsequently not develop a accurate annual vaccine for the flu, how will we be able to develop an effective vaccine for a virus with antigenic shift?
And IF we cannot develop an effective vaccine and IF these mutations are significant, how will that effect herd immunity? Will the "herd" no longer be immune after 25, 50 or 100 mutations/drifts/shifts in a year? And if it does negatively effect herd immunity, what is our new reality?
This information will help me determine whether to cash in the 401k or keep it!
Mutates about every other transmission (about every 2 weeks). This is typically a single base mutation in a genome of 30k. So while that sounds like it mutates pretty fast, it doesn't change very much.
Another thing to consider, there is a lot of redundancy in the genetic code. Only about 1/3 of the changes in a protein coding region actually change the amino acid sequence of a protein. Also, changes in non-protein coding regions don't really effect the protein.
And lastly, vaccine and immunity will target a few parts of about 2 proteins. For a mutation to change something, it would have to alter the amino acid sequence in those particular regions or cause large structural changes that would alter the function (ability to infect). Additionally, you immune system develops antibodies to many different parts. So you would have to make changes to several of these regions to lose immunity.
The good thing is that in the hundreds of genomes of the virus (from different patients), none have changed the important regions that the immune system recognizes.
And one finally piece of evidence that a vaccine is possible, antibodies to SARS recognize SARCoV2 with over 17 years of different changes.
Today's update!
https://www.facebook.com/1998386763777604/posts/2677829572499983/?sfnsn=mo
https://www.facebook.com/1998386763777604/posts/2677829572499983/?sfnsn=mo
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
I guess I should have waited one more day and my concern would have been answered regarding "recovered/immune" numbers starting to jump significantly.
I don't know if it can be said enough how much I appreciate your input and all the medical guys on here. This quickly became my "go to" source every morning.
I don't know if it can be said enough how much I appreciate your input and all the medical guys on here. This quickly became my "go to" source every morning.
I read the England thinks it is close to having a vac for this. Question is....would they share it with us and if so, who would be prioritized to get the early production.
I am old enough to remember the miracle of the Salk vaccination. In Central Texas, my rural school loaded us all up in school busses, took us to the municiple building in Temple and we all got the shot and the follow ups. I am not sure back then IF they even asked our parents or if any parent would have said no.
A few years ago there was an huge shortage for flu shots. I don't remember the why, I just remember that there were rules about who could get the limitted supply.
So, doc, do you think th Brits are as close as they claim....and if so, is the protocol out there for who they share it with?
I am old enough to remember the miracle of the Salk vaccination. In Central Texas, my rural school loaded us all up in school busses, took us to the municiple building in Temple and we all got the shot and the follow ups. I am not sure back then IF they even asked our parents or if any parent would have said no.
A few years ago there was an huge shortage for flu shots. I don't remember the why, I just remember that there were rules about who could get the limitted supply.
So, doc, do you think th Brits are as close as they claim....and if so, is the protocol out there for who they share it with?
What I have seen from the brits is "we are about to start clinical trials". We started clinical trials on vaccine candidates in the US over a month ago and are adding more all the time. So, are they any closer? Is theirs more likely to work? I guess we will find out. It is possible that vaccine clinical trials in the UK are shorter or will be accelerated more than those in the US, and if so, the FDA might not accept those results as sufficient for approval.3rd Generation Ag said:
I read the England thinks it is close to having a vac for this. Question is....would they share it with us and if so, who would be prioritized to get the early production.
I am old enough to remember the miracle of the Salk vaccination. In Central Texas, my rural school loaded us all up in school busses, took us to the municiple building in Temple and we all got the shot and the follow ups. I am not sure back then IF they even asked our parents or if any parent would have said no.
A few years ago there was an huge shortage for flu shots. I don't remember the why, I just remember that there were rules about who could get the limitted supply.
So, doc, do you think th Brits are as close as they claim....and if so, is the protocol out there for who they share it with?
Another alternative is that instead of a large phase 3 trial, the UK rolls out the vaccine to a large portion of the population as a massive phase 3 trial. If that happens, I could see some conspiracy types complaining that the UK has a vaccine and isn't sharing it.
As for sharing... vaccines are developed/licensed/manufactured by companies that would like to sell as much as possible. The pharma world also has many examples of drug companies that develop a drug and then license another company to handle manufacturing and distribution is another market. Say a company in Europe develops a drug but doesn't have the capacity/ability to manufacture and distribute in the US. The company would license the US sales to a company in the US who could then make and sell in the US giving a royalty back to the European company. It happens the other direction too.
I don't think there would be any barriers like the Brits not being willing to sell their vaccine to Americans. Just like if the US had a vaccine, we would have no issues with selling our vaccine to the Brits. Different requirements for approval could be a barrier to everyone having the same vaccine. I believe the initial measles vaccine in the US (in the '60s) was not available in Europe because Europe took a different approach and didn't think the approach taken in the US was safe enough, so it can happen.
The other possibility is a US developed vaccine and a UK or EU developed vaccine are approved at about the same time. You may end up with different vaccines initially as each country/regions works to vaccinate their population first. The FDA might grant emergency use authorization to the US one but not the UK one if they are confident the US vaccine could be supplied to everyone (who wants it) in the US without needing to add the other vaccine. That may be especially true if manufacturing the UK vaccine in the US would take capacity away from manufacturing the US vaccine instead of adding vaccine capacity.
Here's an interview with one of the Oxford researchers. Time will tell.
https://www.facebook.com/OutFrontCNN/videos/researchers-in-oxford-hope-to-have-a-coronavirus-vaccine-ready-by-september/236448497559036/
(No Facebook login required)
https://www.facebook.com/OutFrontCNN/videos/researchers-in-oxford-hope-to-have-a-coronavirus-vaccine-ready-by-september/236448497559036/
(No Facebook login required)
Today's update!
https://www.facebook.com/1998386763777604/posts/2678717855744488/?sfnsn=mo
https://www.facebook.com/1998386763777604/posts/2678717855744488/?sfnsn=mo
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Thanks again Doc!
Glad to see the economy might start slowly coming back in phases, but as it opens up, what's to stop a "super spreader" that we saw last month in NYC and other places start another outbreak and how do we combat that?
Glad to see the economy might start slowly coming back in phases, but as it opens up, what's to stop a "super spreader" that we saw last month in NYC and other places start another outbreak and how do we combat that?
Ideally people continue to use social distancing and start using masks. That should limit the spread both in the event of a super spreader and from those that were infected by the event. For example, if someone infected goes to church with hundreds of their people, the number of people who will be infected is diminished if they are spread out more and wearing masks. If you can reduce that event from infecting 50 people to infecting 5 people, the outbreak is much less of a problem.Big Al 1992 said:
Thanks again Doc!
Glad to see the economy might start slowly coming back in phases, but as it opens up, what's to stop a "super spreader" that we saw last month in NYC and other places start another outbreak and how do we combat that?
Additionally, test and trace. Even if the initial spreader doesn't show signs in a couple days (stays asymptomatic), then one of the secondary infections will likely show symptoms. You want to trace back to when they became infectious and isolate and test anyone they potentially spread to, but also figure out where they got it. Once you identify the event as a super spread event, then you will need to test everyone at the event.
You can have a big jump in infections, but if you can significantly reduce the spread from there, you can keep the outbreak from growing exponentially. Keep in mind, the goal is to flatten the curve, not eliminate the spread. Also, Abbott, when talking about opening up, suggested we might see some areas have to return to more restrictive for a while if there is a local flair up.
We shouldn't fear a flair up, but we need to be prepared to contain it.
Dr. Thank you so much for all that you are doing.
Would you recommend any med or supplement to address the clotting issue for people who are treating at home without having to go to the ER? Wasn't aspirin (an nsaid) on the 'do not take' list? I've also heard good things about eating raw garlic.
Would you recommend any med or supplement to address the clotting issue for people who are treating at home without having to go to the ER? Wasn't aspirin (an nsaid) on the 'do not take' list? I've also heard good things about eating raw garlic.
Masks.
There is a difference between airborne spread and droplet spread. Airborne spread is from very small droplets that allows the virus to stay airborne. Droplet spread is larger droplets that fall out of the air over a distance.
To protect against airborne, you need an n95 mask that stops 95% of viruses and properly fit. The cloth homemade masks and the surgical masks don't protect block aerosol spread.
Some Surgical procedures, dental procedures can create aerosols, so we stopped non emergency dental and kept the n95 masks for medical.
The point of the homemade masks is to stop droplet spread. Droplets are produced by coughs and sneezes and to a much smaller extent by breathing. The homemade masks can reduce the spread of the droplets from someone infected. But you will notice when you wear one that there is a lot of leakage. This is especially obvious if you wear glasses and they fog up from your breath. But you significantly reduce the forward flow.
There has been a bit of a mixed message during this outbreak. Initially we were told wearing a mask won't really reduce your chance of catching the virus. And that is true if there is a very low chance of being exposed, which was/is the case in most of the country.
Now we know that there is a significant number of asymptomatic carriers and people can spread for a day or two before symptoms. If everyone wears a mask, the masks will reduce the spread from the carriers.
There is a difference between airborne spread and droplet spread. Airborne spread is from very small droplets that allows the virus to stay airborne. Droplet spread is larger droplets that fall out of the air over a distance.
To protect against airborne, you need an n95 mask that stops 95% of viruses and properly fit. The cloth homemade masks and the surgical masks don't protect block aerosol spread.
Some Surgical procedures, dental procedures can create aerosols, so we stopped non emergency dental and kept the n95 masks for medical.
The point of the homemade masks is to stop droplet spread. Droplets are produced by coughs and sneezes and to a much smaller extent by breathing. The homemade masks can reduce the spread of the droplets from someone infected. But you will notice when you wear one that there is a lot of leakage. This is especially obvious if you wear glasses and they fog up from your breath. But you significantly reduce the forward flow.
There has been a bit of a mixed message during this outbreak. Initially we were told wearing a mask won't really reduce your chance of catching the virus. And that is true if there is a very low chance of being exposed, which was/is the case in most of the country.
Now we know that there is a significant number of asymptomatic carriers and people can spread for a day or two before symptoms. If everyone wears a mask, the masks will reduce the spread from the carriers.
GaryClare, the docs and other professionals can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure if the person in line in front of you is just breathing the do not create an aerosolized cloud of the virus. Your mask, even a makeshift one, will likely protect you in this scenario, and if the person ahead of you has a mask too you are even better off.
However if a person with the virus coughs or sneezes it is different. It propels droplets that float around briefly and they also settle on objects and these can remain infectious for a time depending on the environment.
IMHO way too much hype has been made of the virus' ability to float in the air for any length of time. The tests out there I know of that the uninformed use to hype this were in a lab where they nebulizer the virus and in an ICU where they were likely applying positive pressure and/ or nebulizing the virus with medical devices to assist the patient in breathing. It is highly unlikely you are would encounter these nique situations when you are out and about in life.
FWIW I am not a medical professional, but I do have a decent amount of CRBN knowledge.
Stay safe, but unless you are in a high risk group, the risk levels are not what some have made them out to be.
However if a person with the virus coughs or sneezes it is different. It propels droplets that float around briefly and they also settle on objects and these can remain infectious for a time depending on the environment.
IMHO way too much hype has been made of the virus' ability to float in the air for any length of time. The tests out there I know of that the uninformed use to hype this were in a lab where they nebulizer the virus and in an ICU where they were likely applying positive pressure and/ or nebulizing the virus with medical devices to assist the patient in breathing. It is highly unlikely you are would encounter these nique situations when you are out and about in life.
FWIW I am not a medical professional, but I do have a decent amount of CRBN knowledge.
Stay safe, but unless you are in a high risk group, the risk levels are not what some have made them out to be.
“It ain’t like it used to be.”
-Jimbo Fisher
-Jimbo Fisher
Similar to the tests cited to say that the cloth mask is no protection at all - many of those are studies that compare medical masks in a medical setting for a whole shift.maroonbeansnrice said:
IMHO way too much hype has been made of the virus' ability to float in the air for any length of time. The tests out there I know of that the uninformed use to hype this were in a lab where they nebulizer the virus and in an ICU where they were likely applying positive pressure and/ or nebulizing the virus with medical devices to assist the patient in breathing. It is highly unlikely you are would encounter these nique situations when you are out and about in life.
(I'm also not a medical professional)
I really appreciate this forum and the input that you and others are providing. I feel like there is a dearth of informed analysis in narrative form about this disease. I have tried to stick to places like Next Strain World in Data and NIH but there are limits to what you can digest from primary literature.
Biochem - where are you going for information on vaccine trials etc?
Biochem - where are you going for information on vaccine trials etc?
Today's update!
https://www.facebook.com/1998386763777604/posts/2679578668991740/?sfnsn=mo
https://www.facebook.com/1998386763777604/posts/2679578668991740/?sfnsn=mo
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Thank you again for all that you do sir. I've got family in other cities reading your updates now. Keep up the great work!
I guess I hadn't even considered that antibody results would be counted in the official confirmed cases tally. Either due to poor antibody tests or the fact they just wanted to count ACTIVE virus tests results - I had just assumed antibody tests wouldn't get grouped in. I am glad to hear they are - both to reflect a more realistic IFR but also just glad to hear we trust the results enough to officially count them.
It is problematic for tracking cases and the peak of the curve. We should be tracking at least 2 numbers. 1) positive virus tests for comparing the peak, 2) combined positive virus and antibody tests to have the total numbers, and 3) number of known active cases.Complete Idiot said:
I guess I hadn't even considered that antibody results would be counted in the official confirmed cases tally. Either due to poor antibody tests or the fact they just wanted to count ACTIVE virus tests results - I had just assumed antibody tests wouldn't get grouped in. I am glad to hear they are - both to reflect a more realistic IFR but also just glad to hear we trust the results enough to officially count them.
A positive antibody test could be someone who had it a couple of months ago and shouldn't be added into today's new tests.
I also have questions about reporting.
virus positive tests are a reportable event (healthcare reports to local health dept) because it is an active case. Is a positive antibody test be required to report to health dept since it isn't an active case?
How well is the health dept cross referencing the positive virus tests from a month ago with the positive antibody tests from today? How often are we double counting because we counted +1 when the patient tested positive for the virus and +1 when the patient tested positive for the antibodies?
Lance in Round Mountain
Joined:
Apr 5, 2012
Posts:
2,622
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Man, you can say that again.BiochemAg97 said:
There has been a bit of a mixed message during this outbreak.
Thank you for all that you are doing, Dr. Coates. I look forward to your thoughts on Governor Abbott's plan to re-open the state that was announced today!
honestly, until we have detailed consistent credible info on:
1) communicability and means of communication
2) rate of serious hospitalization symptoms
3) fatality rate
4) rate of reinfection/recurrence of symptoms/complications/serious permanent issue
5) rate and duration of immunity among recovered patients
6) likelihood and timing of vaccine or widely available effective treatment
then no one can make good decisions about their health or their business.
and this information exists. it's been 5+ months.
the information is not getting to the public. why the hell not?
1) communicability and means of communication
2) rate of serious hospitalization symptoms
3) fatality rate
4) rate of reinfection/recurrence of symptoms/complications/serious permanent issue
5) rate and duration of immunity among recovered patients
6) likelihood and timing of vaccine or widely available effective treatment
then no one can make good decisions about their health or their business.
and this information exists. it's been 5+ months.
the information is not getting to the public. why the hell not?
cbr said:
honestly, until we have detailed consistent credible info on:
1) communicability and means of communication
2) rate of serious hospitalization symptoms
3) fatality rate
4) rate of reinfection/recurrence of symptoms/complications/serious permanent issue
5) rate and duration of immunity among recovered patients
6) likelihood and timing of vaccine or widely available effective treatment
then no one can make good decisions about their health or their business.
and this information exists. it's been 5+ months.
the information is not getting to the public. why the hell not?
For 1,2,3 I think we have some pretty good information. Unfortunately, the media and others seem to bombard us with confusing information as well. Spread is by droplets, but non scientists keep saying "airborne" and "aerosol" which have a specific meaning that is different than droplet. 2 and 3 are being pushed way lower by the antibody testing results, into the range of 0.5 for deaths which is where some have been predicting since the beginning.
4) rate of reinfection is minimal if at all. SoKo data shows the positive qPCR tests were not picking up live infectious virus. No idea why WHO is freaking people out with "no evidence of immunity" other than trying to prevent countries from using "immunity passports".
5) we don't know how long immunity lasts because we haven't had people immune for long enough. Best answer is at least this long. And we can't wait to know that because it will take as long as immunity lasts to find out. Is it at least a year? That will take a year to find out.
Timing of vaccine will take as long as it takes. Oxford group is saying they will have theirs in 6 months (because they are short cutting/accelerating clinical trials). Fauci is saying 18 months because that is when the trials for the vaccine NIAID is supporting will be finished, but it is also the least tested platform and will take the most trials to prove out. Others may finish sooner.
We may know more on effective treatments in a few weeks. Some of the clinical trials are scheduled to finish at the end of April.
Featured Stories
See All
46:34
22h ago
9.5k
12:47
1h ago
1.3k
Gavin Grahovac has new perspective as he recovers from surgery
by Ryan Brauninger
Players to Watch: No. 25 Texas A&M vs. Bowling Green
by Olin Buchanan
29:43
21h ago
1.6k
Pick 'Em & Rip 'Em sponsored by PrizePicks: Week 4
by Matthew Dawson
Presenting Texas Aggies United’s Best Seats In The House Sweepstakes!
by Texas Aggies United