The Next Pandemic: SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19

[SoCal Deek]

35 minutes ago, shoshin said:

 

I don't know WTF is going on in NJ. Cases are super low, deaths are very high. So many inconsistent data points throughout this. The numbers don't lie but nor do they tell the clearest tale. 

It’s clearly an outlier. Bad data and really bad reporting. That’s exactly where the federal government officials should be heading today. It’s not helping anyone if you have a state in such total disarray. 

[realtruelove]

34 minutes ago, shoshin said:

 

I don't know WTF is going on in NJ. Cases are super low, deaths are very high. So many inconsistent data points throughout this. The numbers don't lie but nor do they tell the clearest tale. 

There has to be some clue or clues regarding NJ and the high deaths.  Is there something unique about the environment, the makeup of that population?  Any common threads with those dead?

 

[Gary M]

3 hours ago, shoshin said:

Simple science. Good title to this series: It's okay to be Smart.

 

 

 

He has an episode on vaccines too but I don't want to be too extreme. 

 

If they work why are we not fully open now, i understand the democrat caused shortage of masks early on, but now we have plenty. We should be fully open

[SoCal Deek]

Just now, realtruelove said:

There has to be some clue or clues regarding NJ and the high deaths.  Is there something unique about the environment, the makeup of that population?  Any common threads with those dead?

 

It’s total incompetence on the part of their public health office. That data is garbage and someone needs to lose their job.

[WEATHER DOT COM]

3 minutes ago, Gary M said:

 

You're wrong, they don't agree, I have seen estimates of 15% to 43% never saw 65-75%

 

NIH, Johns Hopkins, Stanford, and May Clinic are all within the range I stated.

 

What scientific institutions/scientists have estimated 15-43%? 

[Gary M]

2 minutes ago, wAcKy ZeBrA said:

 

NIH, Johns Hopkins, Stanford, and May Clinic are all within the range I stated.

 

What scientific institutions/scientists have estimated 15-43%?

 

When did they estimate that, March?

 

https://reason.com/2020/05/15/whats-the-herd-immunity-threshold-for-the-covid-19-coronavirus/

 

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/covid-19-achieving-herd-immunity-may-occur-sooner-than-previously-thought

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/06/200623111329.htm

 

BTW I meant you were wrong about the consensus

[SoCal Deek]

6 minutes ago, wAcKy ZeBrA said:

 

NIH, Johns Hopkins, Stanford, and May Clinic are all within the range I stated.

 

What scientific institutions/scientists have estimated 15-43%? 

Since we’ve only tested barely 15% of the population it’s impossible to tell the level of immunity we’re at. And it shows how ridiculous the ‘test everyone’ crowd was back in April. It cannot be done. So...when will we reach herd immunity? Nobody really knows for sure but we’re clearly not there yet in the newly fertile SW part of the country.

[Gary M]

59 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Shosin has started showing the same death chart I’ve been quoting and summarizing for weeks/months now. It’s appreciated! So....I could give my usual daily tally but I won’t. My observation is a simple one: the virus, which is passed from person to person, has obviously moved from the NE to the SW corner of the country. Much like a cold front on a weather map. It’s definitely NOT random. And it’s definitely NOT linked to politics. As others have cited, the outlier is New Jersey but again it’s an outlier.

The nonsense you read about Trump’s Tulsa rally is nonsense. The nonsense you used to read about how great California was doing was, nonsense. The nonsense about this being a second wave is nonsense. The virus is doing exactly what contagious viruses do. And I’m guessing it would have done it sooner had the country not stopped virtually all domestic air travel. 

 

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/animated-world-map

 

was hoping for better animation

[WEATHER DOT COM]

13 minutes ago, Gary M said:

 

When did they estimate that, March?

 

https://reason.com/2020/05/15/whats-the-herd-immunity-threshold-for-the-covid-19-coronavirus/

 

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/covid-19-achieving-herd-immunity-may-occur-sooner-than-previously-thought

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/06/200623111329.htm

 

BTW I meant you were wrong about the consensus

 

Your reason article even states this...

 

Most the evidence so far suggests that people who recover from a COVID-19 coronavirus infection do, at least for a time, develop immunity to the microbe. If that's true, what is the disease-induced herd immunity threshold for the COVID-19 coronavirus? Various epidemiologists offer different answers, depending upon their estimates for the disease's R0 and other variables, but most have converged on a threshold at around 60 to 70 percent.

 

That article seems to be based on the sciencedaily study - haven't had time to check out the mdnewstoday one. The study seems interesting - I'll give it a read when I had a chance. Thanks.

Edited July 10, 2020 by wAcKy ZeBrA

[123719bwiqrb]

5 minutes ago, wAcKy ZeBrA said:

 

Your reason article even states this...

 

Most the evidence so far suggests that people who recover from a COVID-19 coronavirus infection do, at least for a time, develop immunity to the microbe. If that's true, what is the disease-induced herd immunity threshold for the COVID-19 coronavirus? Various epidemiologists offer different answers, depending upon their estimates for the disease's R0 and other variables, but most have converged on a threshold at around 60 to 70 percent.

 

That article seems to be based on the sciencedaily study - haven't had time to check out the mdnewstoday one. The study seems interesting - I'll give it a read when I had a chance. Thanks.

 

I think the confounding part is a large percentage of the population get the virus but are asymptomatic.  This asymptomatic population is the reason for the new theory that the herd immunity threshold is much lower.  What that % number is seems to depend on your political leanings more than science.  The 60-70% is the old theory, 20% is the new theory being floated about, and practically speaking it is probably somewhere between those 2 numbers.

[Taro T]

3 minutes ago, 123719bwiqrb said:

 

I think the confounding part is a large percentage of the population get the virus but are asymptomatic.  This asymptomatic population is the reason for the new theory that the herd immunity threshold is much lower.  What that % number is seems to depend on your political leanings more than science.  The 60-70% is the old theory, 20% is the new theory being floated about, and practically speaking it is probably somewhere between those 2 numbers.

 

It seems the theory is that to reach herd immunity you need to have ~80% of the population exhibit resistance to catching/transmitting the virus.

 

Initial theories were that because this virus is "novel" that nearly 0% of the population would be naturally resistant to it and you'd need 70%+ of the population to be exposed to it to reach herd immunity.

 

There are now studies (no idea whether they are valid) estimating that up to 70% of the population may have a natural resistance to the virus due to exposure to other coronaviruses over their lives.  My guess is that is an overly optimistic estimate.  But there are studies that suggest in the places that had major hot spots, such as Milan or NYC, that ~20% of the population was exposed to the point of contracting the virus.  NYC also doesn't seem to be having a 2nd wave despite the fact that there were thousands of people out at the protests.  So, maybe that 20% is accurate and also maybe NYC has reached the mythical herd immunity.  If so, it would seem ~60% of the population is naturally resistant.

 

If the 20% is the true threshold we need to reach herd immunity, then these new areas having their 1st wave is a good thing as they'll get to that level sometime in the next few weeks.  And those areas should be in decent shape in the fall.

 

IF those assumptions are valid, then it's those of us that live rurally that haven't seen the 1st wave yet that will have to deal with this in the fall when the normal flu season starts.

 

Hard to say about any of it because there is so much BS getting floated from both directions.  Thanks @Magox @SoCal Deek and even @shoshin for bringing us data that seems to be more reliable than a lot of it.

[Gary M]

41 minutes ago, wAcKy ZeBrA said:

 

Your reason article even states this...

 

Most the evidence so far suggests that people who recover from a COVID-19 coronavirus infection do, at least for a time, develop immunity to the microbe. If that's true, what is the disease-induced herd immunity threshold for the COVID-19 coronavirus? Various epidemiologists offer different answers, depending upon their estimates for the disease's R0 and other variables, but most have converged on a threshold at around 60 to 70 percent.

 

That article seems to be based on the sciencedaily study - haven't had time to check out the mdnewstoday one. The study seems interesting - I'll give it a read when I had a chance. Thanks.

 

I was showing how the estimates are changing over time, the reason article is two months old.

 

Testing is the key, especially antibody testing.

Edited July 10, 2020 by Gary M

[Tiberius]

ASU researchers develop cheaper, faster saliva test for COVID-19 

 

 

Researchers at the ASU Biodesign Institute must wear protective gear while testing samples for the coronavirus that causes COVID-19. (Source: ASU Biodesign Institute) 

By Nathaniel Boyle | July 8, 2020 at 5:16 PM MST - Updated July 8 at 5:18 PM 

PHOENIX — As the number of Arizonans who have contracted COVID-19 has raced past 100,000, testing for the novel coronavirus that causes the respiratory disease has become a priority. Some of that testing now is being done through saliva, a process that’s easier and less expensive.

Arizona’s first saliva test – designed by scientists at Arizona State University to make university-wide testing feasible in the fall – already has been administered to more than 6,000 people, according to Vel Murugan, an associate research professor at ASU’s Biodesign Institute. It’s an alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs, which are uncomfortable and can be dangerous to frontline workers.

Saliva tests may be even more accurate than nasal tests, said Joshua LaBaer, executive director of the Biodesign Institute. Nasopharyngeal swabs involve inserting a cotton swab into the nose and pushing it to the back of the palate, where the sample is collected. The swab then is put into about half a teaspoon of liquid, mostly saline.

“But in the case of the saliva test, the entire sample is produced by the person,” he said. “So, if there’s virus in there, there’s probably a little bit more virus in the saliva test. So, in our hands, it’s as effective, and in at least a couple of cases it looks like it might be a little bit more effective.”

[123719bwiqrb]

3 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

ASU researchers develop cheaper, faster saliva test for COVID-19 

 

 

Researchers at the ASU Biodesign Institute must wear protective gear while testing samples for the coronavirus that causes COVID-19. (Source: ASU Biodesign Institute) 

By Nathaniel Boyle | July 8, 2020 at 5:16 PM MST - Updated July 8 at 5:18 PM 

PHOENIX — As the number of Arizonans who have contracted COVID-19 has raced past 100,000, testing for the novel coronavirus that causes the respiratory disease has become a priority. Some of that testing now is being done through saliva, a process that’s easier and less expensive.

Arizona’s first saliva test – designed by scientists at Arizona State University to make university-wide testing feasible in the fall – already has been administered to more than 6,000 people, according to Vel Murugan, an associate research professor at ASU’s Biodesign Institute. It’s an alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs, which are uncomfortable and can be dangerous to frontline workers.

Saliva tests may be even more accurate than nasal tests, said Joshua LaBaer, executive director of the Biodesign Institute. Nasopharyngeal swabs involve inserting a cotton swab into the nose and pushing it to the back of the palate, where the sample is collected. The swab then is put into about half a teaspoon of liquid, mostly saline.

“But in the case of the saliva test, the entire sample is produced by the person,” he said. “So, if there’s virus in there, there’s probably a little bit more virus in the saliva test. So, in our hands, it’s as effective, and in at least a couple of cases it looks like it might be a little bit more effective.”

 

That's cool.  While some people don't mind the nasal swab test, my wife described it as a lobotomy via q-tip. She is a blonde, so she doesn't have much to work with either.

Edited July 10, 2020 by 123719bwiqrb

[Buffalo_Gal]

If half the country wore one of these, the mask argument would be over in two seconds.

Seems that no one says anything to me...lol. one guy said, you're either packing or crazy...I replied, "DO YOU WANTA FIND OUT?"....He walked away...lol
 

 

[shoshin]

1 hour ago, plenzmd1 said:

A week or so back, Jersey added 600 some deaths that had previously not been noted as Covid, to Covid. My guess is that is continuing to occur. Frustrating for sure 

 

Worldometer didn't add those on that day. I don't know what is going on. Maybe it's more reclassification but I'd like someone to write about it because it's really striking. 

1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

Since we’ve only tested barely 15% of the population it’s impossible to tell the level of immunity we’re at. And it shows how ridiculous the ‘test everyone’ crowd was back in April. It cannot be done. So...when will we reach herd immunity? Nobody really knows for sure but we’re clearly not there yet in the newly fertile SW part of the country.

 

And even that's not true because lots of people have been tested twice or more, and my negative test from last week is irrelevant today. 

29 minutes ago, 123719bwiqrb said:

 

That's cool.  While some people don't mind the nasal swab test, my wife described it as a lobotomy via q-tip. She is a blonde, so she doesn't have much to work with either.

 

Your wife is a drama Q (do not comment!) or the person giving the test was an idiot. I've had three tests and none were anything more than awkward feeling. Zero pain. 

 

People have been talking about the salvia test and the rapid test now since March. Zero widespread usage of either one at this point. 

Edited July 10, 2020 by shoshin

[WEATHER DOT COM]

9 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

If half the country wore one of these, the mask argument would be over in two seconds.

Seems that no one says anything to me...lol. one guy said, you're either packing or crazy...I replied, "DO YOU WANTA FIND OUT?"....He walked away...lol
 

 

 

This liberal would love it. The more people who wear masks, the quicker this ***** is over with. I'd like to watch a kickoff in September.

Edited July 10, 2020 by wAcKy ZeBrA

[123719bwiqrb]

4 minutes ago, shoshin said:

First, your wife is absurd or the person giving the test was an idiot. I've had three tests and none were more than awkward. Zero pain. 

 

She is a goof, but I witnessed it.  I was driving the car and she was in the passenger seat, and the dude went the full swab's length into her nostril.  Looked painful to me.

[shoshin]

1 hour ago, realtruelove said:

There has to be some clue or clues regarding NJ and the high deaths.  Is there something unique about the environment, the makeup of that population?  Any common threads with those dead?

 

 

I can't answer. Someone out there probably has written something up but it's not on top of Twitter or the news. Yesterday had 300 cases, 100 deaths. That's a super WTF ratio. 

Just now, 123719bwiqrb said:

 

She is a goof, but I witnessed it.  I was driving the car and she was in the passenger seat, and the dude went the full swab's length into her nostril.  Looked painful to me.

 

That's on the dude sticking it into your wife. Most guys couldn't watch that but different strokes for different folks. 

[WEATHER DOT COM]

Interesting thing I found researching the NJ deaths. Like you, @shoshin, I can't find anything at the moment that explains their high death to cases ratio.