Corona virus, China major city lockdowns, etc.

Fangzhouzi(Fangshimin）Twitter: --- By Google Translator

The preliminary results of the University of Southern California researchers spot-checking the blood of residents in the Los Angeles area came out. The blood of 4.1% of the test subjects contained antibodies against the new coronavirus. It is concluded that 2.8% -5.6% of the adults in Los Angeles have been infected with the new coronavirus, which is equivalent to 221,000 -442,000 people, 28-55 times the number of confirmed cases in Los Angeles at the beginning of April, with an estimated mortality rate of 0.14% -0.27%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reexre

I don't think so.

I don't believe mainstream

---

Does that mean that the more obscure and less well regarded a source happens to be, the more likely you are to believe it? Isn't that a recipe that guarantees a bad outcome?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

Ah, that makes sense. So is it fair to say that 08 and 10 reflect roughly 2 years because most contributions come in the year preceding an election or are they spread more evenly cross a whole four years.

---

two years... the election cycle often starts in the september the year preceding the election, but most money doesn't come in until following the primaries in the spring. The House is elected every two years... while the Senate is every 6 years, with a third off set every two years - if that makes sense...

-tg

I'll come back to this...

https://youtu.be/794AHQXWLCg?t=26m54s

Where is the "left?"

Fangzhouzi(Fangshimin）Twitter: --- By Google Translator

(1) The new National Coronary Virus Disease Treatment Guidelines issued by the National Institutes of Health do not recommend the use of any drug treatment because there is no evidence; it opposes the use of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, HIV protease inhibitors, interferon and other treatments.

(2) All the personnel of the USS Roosevelt have been tested for nucleic acid. Of the nearly 5,000 people, 840 were infected with the new coronavirus (infection rate 17%), 4 were hospitalized (severe rate 0.5%), and no one died.

(3) The Pasteur Institute of France announced the blood test results of a high school in France from March 30 to April 3. 41% of the teachers and students have antibodies to the new coronavirus, and 11% of their families have antibodies. The proportion of New Coronavirus infection is 26%. 5.3% of these infected people were hospitalized and no one died. Infectiousness within the family is not strong: if students are infected, the probability of their parents being infected increases from 9% to 17%, and the probability of siblings being infected increases from 3% to 21%.

The WHO seems to be saying that one can catch COVID-19 multiple times. This suggests there is no way to acquire immunity and vaccination may be pointless.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p05ekSK7CsM

Surely something has been lost in translation.

Actually, they are saying nobody knows, yet, but it goes well beyond that.

1) You can be immune, but still capable of spreading the virus, making you a risk to others.

2) You aren't immune, but a second infection is very unlikely to be severe.

Either of those would mean that a vaccine would still be a good thing, without it being the cure people are hoping for.

Bill Gates says the whole world will be vaccinated

( YOU DON'T HAVE A CHOICE )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaFPdksOqqM

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

Does that mean that the more obscure and less well regarded a source happens to be, the more likely you are to believe it? Isn't that a recipe that guarantees a bad outcome?

---

to me Luc Montagnier isn't so obscure.
(by this I do not mean that it's impossible he mistakes.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reexre

Bill Gates says the whole world will be vaccinated

( YOU DON'T HAVE A CHOICE )

---

Yeah, speaking of not having a choice:

1) You have to come up with a vaccine.

2) It has to work.

3) You have to produce it in large quantities.

The first and second will be solved pretty quickly, the third may not be solved at all without government assistance. There are few companies that produce vaccines because the profit margin is minute, and subject to vacillating demand. For example, government made big orders for a SARS vaccine, then backed out of all of them once SARS simply vanished. The left the companies holding the bag to the tune of hundreds of millions.

One company suggested that they might be able to put out around 100-600 million doses per year, depending on how difficult it is to produce a dose. The range is based on a reasonable expectation of the difficulty considering similar vaccines. So, if you only have a few companies, and each can produce only around a quarter of a billion doses in a year...you MIGHT get a vaccine, but it could also take a few years.

You might think that companies are going to ramp up production, and they might, but before they shell out the money to increase production facilities, which have a large up-front capital outlay, they need some expectation that they'll make back their investment. In this case, that seems kind of unlikely, unless they can change a premium for a dose. After all, if the vaccine provided immunity, then every buyer would only ever buy once.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

You can be immune, but still capable of spreading the virus, making you a risk to others.

---

Immune means you can't become infected. If you are not infected you are not a host for viral reproduction. If you are not a host you cannot spread it.

Otherwise you must be inventing a new definition for immunity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dilettante

Immune means you can't become infected. If you are not infected you are not a host for viral reproduction. If you are not a host you cannot spread it.

Otherwise you must be inventing a new definition for immunity.

---

Being the Devil's advocate...

You can be immune, interact with people who are infected becoming contaminated, interact with people that are not sick, and infect them. Hence you can be immune and spread it :p

Another good source you may not be following:

https://youtu.be/fn2yk5SbGiw

"The jury is still out."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dilettante

Immune means you can't become infected. If you are not infected you are not a host for viral reproduction. If you are not a host you cannot spread it.

Otherwise you must be inventing a new definition for immunity.

---

Yeah, I am. You make a good point, and I'm not sure whether I was quite right or not. A virus can't replicate on its own, it has to hijack a cell to replicate itself. What I was imagining was a case where the virus got into a few cells in the lungs, replicated a bunch, you coughed out a bunch, then the immune system wiped out the rest, and you never realized you had anything. Now, if the cough was related to the virus, that wouldn't be the case, but we cough for other reasons, too, and that would have the same result.

So, I guess I'm not really saying 'immune' as much as saying that you can keep it such that the virus never gets to the point where your body reacts noticeably (it reacts, as it does to all the viruses you encounter every day, but not noticeably), but you still manage to fire off a modest amount of virus.

In fact you are both right, they are several kinds of "immunity",

First, the virus don't affect you but you have it and can spread it. You are a healthy carrier (the worse case)
Second the virus affect you (with more or less effects), you developed antibody and healed but the virus is still in you and you can spread it, eventually you can also be sick again.
Third, the virus affect you but because you antibodies manage to eradicate the virus, you develop an immunity and you are not anymore contagious (ex : varicella, measles)
In rare case, you can develop the immunity without being sick.

beside that, you can be contagious not because you have the virus in you but on you : you touch something contaminated and touch someone after that.

Also, some diseases are contagious before the apparition of the symptoms and are not anymore after, others before and after.

I suppose I was hoping that we were talking about a form of immunity acquired through infection survival or vaccination. With no hope of those I don't see much getting back to normal aside from a subpopulation of survivors who can be infected without seriously suffering the symptoms, leaving the rest of us facing gradual extinction.

I suppose there is also a possibility of vaccines that tide one over through infection but with no lasting immunity.

And even among a surviving population there is the future unknown, of virus mutation.

There is already some question about the differences noticed in U.S. East vs. West infection, symptoms, recovery, and deaths that has some wondering whether we may already be looking at two different strains.

The major problem with virus is that they mutate and that there are several "sub species".
If you take the Influenza for example, they are every year 8-10 different Influenza in 4 type (A,B,C,D) all under the same public name : the Influenza. for France, the vaccine concerned the 4 majors kinds (A and B type) (I think last year (2018-2019) it was 6 kinds) and is valid for about 1 year as the virus mutate. That's why we have a new vaccine every year. Labs have to do the job every year for each kind of virus and create a new vaccine.

But if the virus mutate faster, then you can be sick two times but not from exactly the same virus (or you can be vaccinated and get sick later anyway)

It's all good practice for the zombie apocalypse.

fortunately, we have passed the 28-day milestone ;)

I saw an interesting thought on why 30-ish people seem to being dying of blood clots more than elderly people. The elderly people die of other issues before the blood clotting can kill them. In other words, the healthier young people survive long enough to die of the blood clots.

That was just someone's thoughts...not anything I saw backed by science.

The moron in chief wants to pullout troops from Afghanistan because of the virus.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/nat...covid-n1191761

That joke of a peace plane he is putting together has failed at almost every bench mark. So I guess using the virus as an excuse would do it. Of course we have troops all over the world and this is a world pandemic but he didn't mention that. I wonder how he squares that?

Go away with your partisan nonsense. Just go away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dilettante

Go away with your partisan nonsense. Just go away.

---

When you get the moron in chief to stop I will...he took a brief respite to his nightly democrat bashing during the pandemic briefings out of his embarrassment of mentioning maybe Americans should try injecting disinfectants. The day he can address the nation during a pandemic briefing without democrat bashing I'll consider it.

@realDonaldTrump at 10:41 a.m.: “Why should the people and taxpayers of America be bailing out poorly run states (like Illinois, as example) and cities, in all cases Democrat run and managed, when most of the other states are not looking for bailout help? I am open to discussing anything, but just asking?”

How partition is that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TysonLPrice

How partition is that?

---

Ummmm, two? Or some kind of half-height flannel covered, modular unit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

Ummmm, two? Or some kind of half-height flannel covered, modular unit?

---

I stand corrected :p

I beg your partition. I hope that doesn't separate us. I'd hate for that to come between us or create some kind of wall...

Quote:

---

Go away with your partisan nonsense

---

Partisan, yes, but not nonsense, sadly. Trump is looking to pull out of Afghanistan (fair enough) and is now using the Corona virus as a reason to do it, even though Afghanistan doesn't seem to have a significant problem with the virus and he's happy to leave troops stationed in... ooh... I don't know... Italy!

I've been giving Trump a by for the last 4 years despite fundamentally disagreeing with his stance on just about every issue. But he has politicised a virus that's killing millions. That's not OK.

I haven't been giving him a by since the 80s, so I don't see any reason to stop just because he got elected president. He is who he's always been. Back then, I even agreed with some of his views, since he held a series of liberal positions. He may have changed his mind since then, but he hasn't changed who he is....and it's hard to say whether or not he's changed his mind. As the Economist put it, he's capable of holding every possible position on an issue simultaneously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

I haven't been giving him a by since the 80s, so I don't see any reason to stop just because he got elected president. He is who he's always been. Back then, I even agreed with some of his views, since he held a series of liberal positions. He may have changed his mind since then, but he hasn't changed who he is....and it's hard to say whether or not he's changed his mind. As the Economist put it, he's capable of holding every possible position on an issue simultaneously.

---

Yeah, he has been morally bankrupted for as long as I can remember. I agree he is who he's always been. None of the things he does surprise me (the disinfectant thing did, that was stupid even by his standards) but now his actions can have terrible consequences.

Loud Millennial attempts to describe current thinking:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KBLtUBr1Os

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dilettante

Loud Millennial attempts to describe current thinking:

---

What exactly do you disagree with in that video? Your post seems to give the idea that you don't like the guy himself, but gives no foundation or anything on the content of the video. SciShow has always been a reputable, fact-based channel that always highly cites their videos.

So again, can you add some substance to your post, instead of a clickbait, useless comment? What is your opinion?

I wasn't disagreeing with the content. And as for that the context is from a few recent posts back: immunity.

I don't think the WHO have ever said that there was evidence that you're immune after catching it once, they have said there was no evidence that you weren't. Given that antibody immunity is by far the most common pattern encountered with viruses the working assumption is that you'll gain immunity - it's just not being taken for granted.

I'm curious because the last two videos you posted seem to be simply restating that there's no evidence you'll acquire immunity after a first bout. They don't represent a change of position but do seem to represent a change of emphasis. Has there been a development to warrant that change of emphasis? I'm not aware of one.

It's also worth mentioning that antibody immunity does not mean you can't catch an virus. It simply means you have the antibodies in place to fight it off efficiently when you do. Generally, the body is so efficient at fighting off known viruses that you won't even be aware it happened.

It all comes down to a question of whether or not herd immunity is possible for COVID-19. So far nearly every positive action proposed or being taken has the development of herd immunity as a premise.

If that isn't a factor then it seems like we might be stuck in this situation for a very long time, and I'm not sure what else could ever end it. What's left? Gradual extinction of everyone except those who can be infected with few serious symptoms?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dilettante

What's left? Gradual extinction of everyone except those who can be infected with few serious symptoms?

---

Here's hoping that isn't the case, but that is Darwinian evolution in a nutshell...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

I don't think the WHO have ever said that there was evidence that you're immune after catching it once, they have said there was no evidence that you weren't. Given that antibody immunity is by far the most common pattern encountered with viruses the working assumption is that you'll gain immunity - it's just not being taken for granted.

I'm curious because the last two videos you posted seem to be simply restating that there's no evidence you'll acquire immunity after a first bout. They don't represent a change of position but do seem to represent a change of emphasis. Has there been a development to warrant that change of emphasis? I'm not aware of one.

It's also worth mentioning that antibody immunity does not mean you can't catch an virus. It simply means you have the antibodies in place to fight it off efficiently when you do. Generally, the body is so efficient at fighting off known viruses that you won't even be aware it happened.

---

He said in post #652 he was trolling :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

He said in post #652 he was trolling

---

I don't like Dil's form of argument (a heady blend of "Both Sides", whataboutisms and JAQing that tends to be a hallmark of right wing and libertarian talking heads in my experience, though not exclusively so) but I wouldn't call it trolling. To me it's simply a form of argument often adopted by people whose underlying position, if they even have one, lacks substance. It's simple deflection. But there are no personal attacks (apart from perhaps telling you to go away but I felt that was pretty mild) and, while many posts appear designed to evoke a response, he doesn't engage in the tit-for-tat baiting that a troll would. He simply posts his stuff and lets you respond as you will.

Anyway...

Quote:

---

It all comes down to a question of whether or not herd immunity is possible for COVID-19. So far nearly every positive action proposed or being taken has the development of herd immunity as a premise.

If that isn't a factor then it seems like we might be stuck in this situation for a very long time, and I'm not sure what else could ever end it. What's left? Gradual extinction of everyone except those who can be infected with few serious symptoms?

---

Yep, I get all that and the WHO have never said otherwise. The most likely position, still, is that we will build an immunity, though we recognise that there is a chance that may not be possible. That position hasn't changed at all, so why the change in emphasis now? Has something changed that I'm not aware of?


As a slightly more cheerful aside: A strip club in Portland has pivoted to doing topless food deliveries during Covid. They're calling it "Boober Eats". Unsurprisingly I couldn't find an article that I felt comfortable linking to from the forum but, suffice it to say, that sometimes you Americans are frickin' brilliant people. Best nation on the planet (apart from us, obviously)

Quote:

---

It all comes down to a question of whether or not herd immunity is possible for COVID-19. So far nearly every positive action proposed or being taken has the development of herd immunity as a premise.

If that isn't a factor then it seems like we might be stuck in this situation for a very long time, and I'm not sure what else could ever end it. What's left? Gradual extinction of everyone except those who can be infected with few serious symptoms?

---

Yeah i almost posted earlier in the thread on this, but i agree with FD there seems to be a number of Scientists and Health Organisations saying we cant guarantee Herd Immunity and also that its not clear that herd immunity can be gained just by enough people contracting the Virus.

What they are also saying is that this is mainly because we lack information on the this new corona virus and they dont want to make assumptions and then have governments making policy decisions off the back of assumptions.

The idea that herd immunity is possible hasn't really changed its just the language as scientists want to emphasise that there is still a lot we just dont know about this Virus.

As for the effectiveness of a vaccine, there have been some suggestions that if herd immunity is not achievable then it may mean making a vaccine is more difficult or not viable, but this is really at this stage just an opinion.

Those working in vaccine development are more optimistic and think that a vaccine is more likely. What they also say they cant tell at the moment is if a vaccine would be just a one off shot like measles or a yearly shot more like Flu or something in between.

It seems that a lack of data is making many people cautious to make predictions and assumptions which for scientists in particular should not be unexpected

The vids Dil has been posted by the doctor (can't remember his name) do seem pretty reliable and balanced though. He seems pretty credible as an expert to me. And, in latest one, he was definitely at pains to point out that we can't guarantee antibody immunity. That made me think there may have been some recent study (or something similar) that had led to him changing his tone.

Long time lurker, first time poster:

a lot of biggest online marketplaces, such as ebay, *******, craigslist and so on are quite okay with fake medicine or test kits being sold on their website.

quite an interesting research has been done and an interesting scraping project too!