- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) ***W.H.O. DECLARES A GLOBAL PANDEMIC***
Posted on 8/14/20 at 11:09 pm to Sasquatch Smash
Posted on 8/14/20 at 11:09 pm to Sasquatch Smash
Anyone else have headaches
1
Posted on 8/15/20 at 10:19 am to Boo Krewe
Has ivermectin been discussed in this thread? I saw some posts from April and May about it. One of the top hospitals where I'm at is treating people with it.
Posted on 8/16/20 at 9:10 am to nugget
quote:
Has ivermectin been discussed
This is ultra intriguing. I've been spraying that down cow and dog throats for a long time
I know a guy who has/had terminal stomach cancer and started giving it to himself every day. He's still alive, so it ought stomp out some covid too
Posted on 8/16/20 at 10:08 am to DownshiftAndFloorIt
We know the same guy?
Posted on 8/16/20 at 10:36 am to jimbeam
I don't think there are too many of those running around
Posted on 8/16/20 at 10:49 am to Whiznot
quote:
My decades of using various fabric filters effectively in a variety of different applications is evidence in support of the contention that masks can protect both the wearer and others from infection.
This is an interesting reply. We went from not needing evidence to some sort of anecdotal evidence with a simultaneous appeal to authority. In your experience, are these "various fabric filters" being effectively used "in a variety of different applications" to stop particulates or to actually prevent viral infections?
quote:
All of medical science agrees.
My decades of experience in reading primary scientific literature says that this is an outright fabrication.
(Check out my appeal to authority! And it's not really an anecdote because the literature is there for anyone to see.)
quote:
I favor a Gateway PeakFit N95.
Cool, man, N95s may provide the best protection. How many PROPERLY FITTED N95 masks are walking around on the streets?
I don't think any of the experiments that show masks working in stopping the PRESUMED MECHANISM FOR TRANSMISSION take into account time of wear. So what if it stops a sneeze, straight ahead, when you first put it on. What's it doing after 8 hours of wear? An hour?
Do they measure leakage around the sides of masks?
That's the reason why there is no consensus when it comes to the evidence of masks actually reducing infections. Infections still get around the most commonly available masks, and/or we don't truly understand how infections are transmitted in natural settings.
The WHO even states, when it comes to masks, that there is a "lack of effectiveness in reducing influenza transmission," in this document published in October 2019. (I believe in the initial publication the "Quality of Evidence" was "very low" or "low," but they've since edited the document to say "moderate" to conform with the hysteria.)
Which is why my stance has been that the evidence for masks working is nowhere near strong enough to mandate everyone wear them and to make it a crime if you don't.
This post was edited on 8/16/20 at 4:00 pm
Posted on 8/16/20 at 11:15 am to Sasquatch Smash
Posted on 8/16/20 at 11:18 am to Sasquatch Smash
N95 masks filter 95% of particles 0.3 microns in diameter and more with larger particles. Infectious aerosols that linger in the air I believe are in the 2 or 3 to 10 micron size from the literature I've read. If so, someone not wearing an N95 mask would receive a viral load about 20 times greater in an infectious atmosphere. This is my belief.
Posted on 8/16/20 at 5:17 pm to Nawlens Gator
Posted on 8/16/20 at 5:26 pm to Nawlens Gator
Almost anything in front of a face is going to block particles better than nothing in front of a face. Putting nothing front of your face just doesn't work very well. People who have a hard time understanding this are lost causes.
Posted on 8/17/20 at 2:06 pm to Whiznot
Daily Mail - Glimmers of hope for COVID-19 immunity: Studies suggest that even people who had mild infections develop multiple cellular defenses against catching coronavirus again
quote:
But recent studies have found robust responses to infection from not only antibodies, but at least two other types of immune cells - B and T cells - as well.
They also suggest that mild infections can result in sufficient immune responses to block the virus from invading a person's body a second time - a relief after early research signalled that people who didn't get severely ill might have little protection.
quote:
Among the latest is a study published on Friday in the journal Cell, in advance of its peer-review process.
Collaborating researchers from several countries including the UK and Sweden found that T cells - white blood cells that directly attack infections and alert other elements of the immune system to the threat - fight coronavirus in survivors of mild infections.
quote:
B cells are the parent cells of antibodies. Once word comes from T cells to B cells, studies have found signs that B cells are capable of quickly scaling up antibody production,
Plus, other research suggests that although antibodies decline sharply after someone clears a coronavirus infection, they don't disappear altogether.
Arizona University and University of Washington studies have found coronavirus antibodies hibernating at low but stable levels in the bloodstream and bone marrow.
Posted on 8/17/20 at 2:23 pm to bbrownso
NY Times article with some supportive news on lower herd immunity rates.
Paywall so opening in incognito tab might help.
Paywall so opening in incognito tab might help.
quote:
To achieve so-called herd immunity — the point at which the virus can no longer spread widely because there are not enough vulnerable humans — scientists have suggested that perhaps 70 percent of a given population must be immune, through vaccination or because they survived the infection.
Now some researchers are wrestling with a hopeful possibility. In interviews with The New York Times, more than a dozen scientists said that the threshold is likely to be much lower: just 50 percent, perhaps even less. If that’s true, then it may be possible to turn back the coronavirus more quickly than once thought.
quote:
But in parts of New York, London and Mumbai, for example, it is not inconceivable that there is already substantial immunity to the coronavirus, scientists said.
“I’m quite prepared to believe that there are pockets in New York City and London which have substantial immunity,” said Bill Hanage, an epidemiologist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. “What happens this winter will reflect that.”
quote:
Once such real-world variations in density and demographics are accounted for, the estimates for herd immunity fall. Some researchers even suggested the figure may be in the range of 10 to 20 percent, but they were in the minority.
quote:
Assuming the virus ferrets out the most outgoing and most susceptible in the first wave, immunity following a wave of infection is distributed more efficiently than with a vaccination campaign that seeks to protect everyone, said Tom Britton, a mathematician at Stockholm University.
His model puts the threshold for herd immunity at 43 percent — that is, the virus cannot hang on in a community after that percentage of residents has been infected and recovered.
quote:
“That could be the explanation for why you don’t see a resurgence in places like New York,” she said.
Most experts reject that notion. Several studies have shown that certain immune cells produced following infection with seasonal coronaviruses may also recognize the new coronavirus.
But “where is the evidence that it’s protective?” asked Natalie Dean, a biostatistician at the University of Florida.
quote:
“We are still nowhere near back to normal in our daily behavior,” said Virginia Pitzer, a mathematical epidemiologist at the Yale School of Public Health. “To think that we can just stop doing all that and go back to normal and not see a rise in cases I think is wrong, is incorrect.”
Posted on 8/17/20 at 2:28 pm to fightin tigers
quote:
some supportive news on lower herd immunity rates.
Is it really news whenever some experts were saying this sort of thing back in March?
Posted on 8/17/20 at 2:37 pm to Sasquatch Smash
Yes. This uses actual data.
Posted on 8/17/20 at 2:42 pm to fightin tigers
quote:
Yes. This uses actual data.
Diamond Princess data was a thing back then.
Edit to add: The topic has been discussed in this thread for at least 2 months now as well, looking at data/papers.
This post was edited on 8/17/20 at 3:03 pm
Posted on 8/17/20 at 2:52 pm to Sasquatch Smash
It really pisses me of that no one appears to be studying the controlled populations we have.
Why hasn’t anyone done antibody tests on the aircraft carrier or prisons that had over 90% infected? Wouldn’t it be helpful to know how many are testing positive for antibodies? It would help tremendously with our ability to interpret the random testing we do.
Why hasn’t anyone done antibody tests on the aircraft carrier or prisons that had over 90% infected? Wouldn’t it be helpful to know how many are testing positive for antibodies? It would help tremendously with our ability to interpret the random testing we do.
Posted on 8/17/20 at 3:01 pm to fightin tigers
Funny that the NY Times is reporting this three days after this BuzzFeed headline:
Posted on 8/17/20 at 3:24 pm to Sasquatch Smash
Edited title to Buzzfeed article: “Right leaning STEM majors try to explain why virus appears easier to control than should be theoretically possible, some studies identify prior t-cell exposure as the cause of the phenomenon”
Posted on 8/18/20 at 7:05 am to BRIllini07
Full text of study
From what I’ve gathered the biggest critique of the Henry Ford study was that patients were also given steroids which we know from other studies can effect mortality from CV-19. I do agree that the main grouping of patients in the chart below had a lot more patients on steroids who took the HCQ....
I agree that would be a confounding variable. However, the study also looked at a propensity matched group in which 190 patients all had the exact same characteristics (see below) including steroid use. This propensity matched group still had a mortality hazard reduction of 51% when using HCQ.
I’m trying to be as rigorous as possible and find any holes in this methodology, but I can’t. It looks pretty solid. Only thing I can think of is that the 190 patients isn’t powerful enough.
Any scientists or physicians want to chime in and help break down this study?
From what I’ve gathered the biggest critique of the Henry Ford study was that patients were also given steroids which we know from other studies can effect mortality from CV-19. I do agree that the main grouping of patients in the chart below had a lot more patients on steroids who took the HCQ....
I agree that would be a confounding variable. However, the study also looked at a propensity matched group in which 190 patients all had the exact same characteristics (see below) including steroid use. This propensity matched group still had a mortality hazard reduction of 51% when using HCQ.
I’m trying to be as rigorous as possible and find any holes in this methodology, but I can’t. It looks pretty solid. Only thing I can think of is that the 190 patients isn’t powerful enough.
Any scientists or physicians want to chime in and help break down this study?
Posted on 8/18/20 at 7:33 am to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
I’m trying to be as rigorous as possible and find any holes in this methodology, but I can’t. It looks pretty solid. Only thing I can think of is that the 190 patients isn’t powerful enough.
Any scientists or physicians want to chime in and help break down this study?
I think the biggest drawback of that study, without delving too deeply in it, is that it's an observational study rather than a controlled study.
Page 1176 of 1190
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News