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

[Scraps]

1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

And one day, when you're in officially in charge of the country, you can run it that way.  Until then, we'll stick the processes we have in place, and you're just going to have be patient.

 

This is repetitive and non-responsive to what I wrote.  You seem to think we are following a process that is in place.  Please describe the process.

 

2 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

You'll recall that many Democrats actually held out right through the inauguration in 2016, with many of them boycotting the event. I cannot see the Republicans doing the same.

 

I recall that Hillary Clinton conceded on the night of the election.  She raised no legal challenges.  She didn't go to any governor or legislator asking them to disenfranchise their citizens.  She attended Trump's inauguration.  All this she did while winning the popular vote.

 

Trump and the Republicons are just sore, whiny L-L-Losers.

[Scraps]

1 hour ago, shoshin said:

 

Maybe this is why Trump didn't buy more doses of it. 

 

The reason I heard was because they had 5 or 6 candidate vaccines going into trials.  They didn't know which ones would work so they diversified and bought quantities of all of them to reduce the risk of an ineffective vaccine.  This is not necessarily a bad approach.

[shoshin]

1 minute ago, Scraps said:

 

The reason I heard was because they had 5 or 6 candidate vaccines going into trials.  They didn't know which ones would work so they diversified and bought quantities of all of them to reduce the risk of an ineffective vaccine.  This is not necessarily a bad approach.

Yeah it is. There’s a time to save a few million. Global pandemic is not that time. 
 

worst case the money advances science. Likely case the money buys too much vaccine and you sell or donate the excess. 
 

It was dumb and it will delay our recovery. 

[Scraps]

11 minutes ago, shoshin said:

Yeah it is. There’s a time to save a few million. Global pandemic is not that time. 
 

worst case the money advances science. Likely case the money buys too much vaccine and you sell or donate the excess. 
 

It was dumb and it will delay our recovery. 

 

I kind of wonder how advanced all these vaccines were when Pfizer offered to sell more.  If it was known Pfizer was further along than the others, and since they hit the finish line first, that is a good guess,  buying another $100 million doses would have cost $1.5 Billion.  This would be about 1.5 B2 Bombers, 0.5 Virginia Class submarines, 0.15% of the current stimulus package being negotiated.  A rather paltry sum.  Even if all the vaccine candidates worked and we had excess, that wouldn't be bad.  The excess could the sold to other countries.

[Warcodered]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/wyoming-health-official-resigns-after-calling-covid-19-pandemic-a-communist-plot/ar-BB1bN69z?ocid=msedgntp

 

well this a real low point for us here in Wyoming.

[Big Blitz]

 

[Big Blitz]

No no you see Liz, you didn't include that Biden will take this more seriously.  That's the key right there.  He is super serious about it.  

 

 

 

[shoshin]

1 hour ago, Big Blitz said:

No no you see Liz, you didn't include that Biden will take this more seriously.  That's the key right there.  He is super serious about it.  

 

 

 

 

You meant the Trump plan where he never wears a mask and holds maskless events and didn't buy up enough vaccines for Americans...from American companies? That plan?

 

Sounds like a winner. 

Edited December 10, 2020 by shoshin

[shoshin]

Brutal numbers. New deaths milestone. Nothing optimistic to pull from these numbers at all but I’m sure that the Alex Berenson cultists are sticking by his prediction that this thing will bottom out in September and T-cell immunity will result in herd immunity before the vaccine. 
 

 

 

 

Edited December 10, 2020 by shoshin

[Big Blitz]

 

 

So apparently despite it being highly contagious and you can be symptom free for up to 14 days, and we know it was in California in January.....only now is it really spreading around.  The policies got real lax over there I guess.    

 

B.S.  Everyone is lying.  

[SoCal Deek]

43 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

So apparently despite it being highly contagious and you can be symptom free for up to 14 days, and we know it was in California in January.....only now is it really spreading around.  The policies got real lax over there I guess.    

 

B.S.  Everyone is lying.  

I know it was sarcasm....but I can assure you that NOTHING has changed out here in California in our response to Covid for the last six months.  It isn't cold weather here. It was 80 degrees today.  People didn't stop wearing masks.  Everyone wears them in ALL stores, etc.  We didn't have any major protests either before or after the election.  People stopped going to the beach weeks ago. (our beach season ends in mid-September).  This new surge started before Thanksgiving. So what changed?  Where did all of the new cases come from?  Nobody knows or has offered a legitimate explanation.  Where are the "scientists"? 

Edited December 10, 2020 by SoCal Deek

[Big Blitz]

History is going to judge us harshly.  

 

 

 

[WideNine]

2 hours ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

So apparently despite it being highly contagious and you can be symptom free for up to 14 days, and we know it was in California in January.....only now is it really spreading around.  The policies got real lax over there I guess.    

 

B.S.  Everyone is lying.  

 

Yes.

 

The policies were relaxed it spread like crazy, and then the policies were put in place again, but folks in California suck as bad as folks in any other state following the health guidance from our nation's health experts.

 

Having common-sense mandates to curb the spread of a virus does not mean folks are following them.

 

Its flawed logic to simply say mask wearing and social distancing does not help curb the spread of Covid, it comes down to either enforcement or voluntary wide-adoption of the risk mitigation policies by the public.

 

Plus, there are just as many idiots in California making excuses to not wear masks or maintain social distancing as there are in red states.

 

It would be similar to saying seatbelts do not save lives because folks are dying where those laws are not enforced and folks don't care to use them.

 

 

 

 

[shoshin]

8 hours ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

So apparently despite it being highly contagious and you can be symptom free for up to 14 days, and we know it was in California in January.....only now is it really spreading around.  The policies got real lax over there I guess.    

 

B.S.  Everyone is lying.  

 

People are lying in not doing all they could to stop the spread for sure. Being apart is not human. 

 

CA with its giant population and big cities has done incredibly well. 

[TBBills]

When you have a President like Trump you end up with ***** like this. This will be part of Trump huge failure as president. He will be an example of American failure for the rest of his life.

Edited December 10, 2020 by TBBills

[TBBills]

7 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

I know it was sarcasm....but I can assure you that NOTHING has changed out here in California in our response to Covid for the last six months.  It isn't cold weather here. It was 80 degrees today.  People didn't stop wearing masks.  Everyone wears them in ALL stores, etc.  We didn't have any major protests either before or after the election.  People stopped going to the beach weeks ago. (our beach season ends in mid-September).  This new surge started before Thanksgiving. So what changed?  Where did all of the new cases come from?  Nobody knows or has offered a legitimate explanation.  Where are the "scientists"? 

The scientists have explained it to you but you call it fake news. Just saying...

Edited December 10, 2020 by TBBills

[SoTier]

46 minutes ago, TBBills said:

When you have a President like Trump you end up with ***** like this. This will be part of Trump huge failure as president. He will be an example of American failure for the rest of his life.

 

You're being too kind.  Trump will be judged as the worst POTUS in US history by such a margin that he'll make previous candidates like James Buchanan, Richard Nixon, and Warren G Harding look like political saints.  

[TBBills]

36 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

You're being too kind.  Trump will be judged as the worst POTUS in US history by such a margin that he'll make previous candidates like James Buchanan, Richard Nixon, and Warren G Harding look like political saints.  

Yes easily the worst president this country has ever had. It will just go to show next time don't vote for a celebrity b.c they only care about ego.

Edited December 10, 2020 by TBBills

[SoCal Deek]

2 hours ago, TBBills said:

The scientists have explained it to you but you call it fake news. Just saying...

Nice try. You clearly know very little about science. When the output of an experiment changes, science dictates that the scientists look for the variable in the input that caused the change. I’ve put it to you that I actually live in California and none of the input variables the ‘scientists’ keep ‘explaining’ to me have changed, and yet the output results of the experiment have changed. There must be another variable that hasn’t been fully vetted.

[TBBills]

3 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

Nice try. You clearly know very little about science. When the output of an experiment changes, science dictates that the scientists look for the variable in the input that caused the change. I’ve put it to you that I actually live in California and none of the input variables the ‘scientists’ keep ‘explaining’ to me have changed, and yet the output results of the experiment have changed. There must be another variable that hasn’t been fully vetted.

Already know no matter how much data people throw at you you are going to be ignorant to the situation b.c you refuse to accept the truth. Even that data you guys try to show as "masks don't work" actually show how they are. If no one wore a mask the number would be so much higher.

 

If the Trumpster government didn't make such a light case for masks the numbers would even be better. That is another discussion that has already been talked about though.

Edited December 10, 2020 by TBBills

[TBBills]

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8

 

To think masks don't work is just a misunderstanding of the science.

 

 

This is easy to see with Republicans.

Edited December 10, 2020 by TBBills

[BillStime]

The MOST CORRUPT administration of our lifetime.

 

CDC officials ‘directed to destroy’ records of potential ‘political interference’ by Trump

[TBBills]

24 minutes ago, BillStime said:

The MOST CORRUPT administration of our lifetime.

 

CDC officials ‘directed to destroy’ records of potential ‘political interference’ by Trump

Just doesn't surprise me, everything that Trump touches becomes corrupt b.c he is pure corruption.

[oldmanfan]

7 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

Nice try. You clearly know very little about science. When the output of an experiment changes, science dictates that the scientists look for the variable in the input that caused the change. I’ve put it to you that I actually live in California and none of the input variables the ‘scientists’ keep ‘explaining’ to me have changed, and yet the output results of the experiment have changed. There must be another variable that hasn’t been fully vetted.

I suspect your estimation of either the number of people properly wearing masks, number of people really doing distancing, or number of people properly hand washing may be off.  This is an extremely contagious virus so it has to be all hands on deck continuously and correctly.  Unfortunately that isn't being done as well as it  could be.  We all need to remember these are mitigating strategies designed to limit spread, they don’t completely eliminate.

[SoCal Deek]

10 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

I suspect your estimation of either the number of people properly wearing masks, number of people really doing distancing, or number of people properly hand washing may be off.  This is an extremely contagious virus so it has to be all hands on deck continuously and correctly.  Unfortunately that isn't being done as well as it  could be.  We all need to remember these are mitigating strategies designed to limit spread, they don’t completely eliminate.

So...to translate....we’re doomed.

[oldmanfan]

1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

So...to translate....we’re doomed.

No, not at all.  You talk about science; I am a clinical lab director and researcher for 40 years, so I am a scientist.  And science generally is not an all or none phenomenon.  The mitigating factors I described are just that, mitigating factors.  When used correctly they will greatly diminish the spread of the virus.  They are not cures.  If used correctly they deprive the virus of hosts for infection

 

We will have vaccines now, and the early data is they seem to be very effective.  But to have them to work, or to have things like masks and such work, it requires a team effort.  This is a public health crisis and requires public unity to fight it.  That is why these silly arguments about masks need to stop, and why people need to get vaccinated.

[Bob in Mich]

I don’t know posters here well enough to know if anyone has any real insight but it is a question that has bothered me.

 

There has been a worldwide drive to develop a vaccine to get us all out of this pandemic.  With several nations and companies working on this vaccine now, we have seen a few shining successes, a few fairly successful, and some announced failures that will result in significant delays.

 

Why aren’t financial arrangements being made to allow the manufacture of the highly successful vaccines by the other companies, at least in the short term to get us past crisis mode?  I realize that different processes may be involved and manufacturing facilities cannot be put in place in a matter of weeks but it seems when some companies are predicting yearlong delays, what is preventing such arrangements?

Edited December 11, 2020 by Bob in Mich

[SoCal Deek]

15 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

No, not at all.  You talk about science; I am a clinical lab director and researcher for 40 years, so I am a scientist.  And science generally is not an all or none phenomenon.  The mitigating factors I described are just that, mitigating factors.  When used correctly they will greatly diminish the spread of the virus.  They are not cures.  If used correctly they deprive the virus of hosts for infection

 

We will have vaccines now, and the early data is they seem to be very effective.  But to have them to work, or to have things like masks and such work, it requires a team effort.  This is a public health crisis and requires public unity to fight it.  That is why these silly arguments about masks need to stop, and why people need to get vaccinated.

I’m glad to have your expertise as insight. I’m not actually making a silly argument about masks. I have no doubt that masks would be part of a solution. But they are of course a tool, not really a solution at all. Relying on the random actions of hundreds of millions of people will only slow the spread, and they certainly have, as we’re rapidly approaching a YEAR of this challenge. 
 

My commentary is asking the community of scientists to go back a step and consider whether they may have overlooked something. The current surge doesn’t appear to be tied to any significant change in the random personal behavior I spoke about above. From my personal, strictly anecdotal observations (in Southern California), people have been more cautious in the last few months, not less. There MUST be another, yet undiscovered, variable to this equation.

Edited December 11, 2020 by SoCal Deek

[oldmanfan]

1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:

I’m glad to have your expertise as insight. I’m not actually making a silly argument about masks. I have no doubt that masks would be part of a solution. But they are of course a tool, not really a solution at all. Relying on the random actions of hundreds of millions of people will only slow the spread, and they certainly have, as we’re rapidly approaching a YEAR of this challenge. 
 

My commentary is asking the community of scientists to go back a step and consider whether they may have overlooked something. The current surge doesn’t appear to be tied to any significant change in the random personal behavior I spoke about above. From my personal, strictly anecdotal observations (in Southern California), people have been more cautious in the last few months, not less. There MUST be another, yet undiscovered, variable to this equation.

You can't say masks are a tool for the spread of the virus but not a solution.  Those don't match, and do not agree with both observational studies as well as many lab studies indicating that masks can help control spread of droplets and aerosols, the vectors by which the virus is transmitted.  I would encourage you to look at the Duke study on masks, it shows that different masks are more effective at controlling droplet spread.  

 

One of the issues with designing really good research is to avoid bias up front.  That is the biggest issue with studies I have reviewed and rejected for publication; they have a preformed conclusion and try to set up experiments to support it.  It might be mask studies reflect that a bit, depending on the specific study you review.  But the bigger issue with observational studies, especially with masks, is you depend on the study participants to independently do what you ask in the way you instruct them, or they falsely report what they're doing.  For masks, I suspect there is some of that going on, either not wearing them correctly or saying they wear them and don't.  I know you live there and see a lot of mask wearing, but you don't know what's going on behind the scenes.

 

I could theorize on other unknown variables that could be affecting rates.  Perhaps the spread in very small aerosol droplets is increasing, which would be an argument for all to wear surgical or N95 masks (see the Duke study which would concur), and that would then be an issue for government to be able to supply these.  Perhaps virus lasts longer on surfaces than currently believed.  But just knowing something about viral infection in general, I can't think of other independent variables that would affect things,  Respiratory viruses spread by either contact or inhalation.  Covid seems to be highly infectious, which means that strenuous use of mitigating factors is needed to slow things down.  Again, slow things down and not completely prevent.  You can't let great be the enemy of good.  The mitigating strategies, on their own are good things (really the only things) we can do right now while waiting for vaccines to be widely distributed.  Vaccines will be great, masks and hand washing and such a re good.  They are not mutually exclusive.

[SoCal Deek]

6 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

You can't say masks are a tool for the spread of the virus but not a solution.  Those don't match, and do not agree with both observational studies as well as many lab studies indicating that masks can help control spread of droplets and aerosols, the vectors by which the virus is transmitted.  I would encourage you to look at the Duke study on masks, it shows that different masks are more effective at controlling droplet spread.  

 

One of the issues with designing really good research is to avoid bias up front.  That is the biggest issue with studies I have reviewed and rejected for publication; they have a preformed conclusion and try to set up experiments to support it.  It might be mask studies reflect that a bit, depending on the specific study you review.  But the bigger issue with observational studies, especially with masks, is you depend on the study participants to independently do what you ask in the way you instruct them, or they falsely report what they're doing.  For masks, I suspect there is some of that going on, either not wearing them correctly or saying they wear them and don't.  I know you live there and see a lot of mask wearing, but you don't know what's going on behind the scenes.

 

I could theorize on other unknown variables that could be affecting rates.  Perhaps the spread in very small aerosol droplets is increasing, which would be an argument for all to wear surgical or N95 masks (see the Duke study which would concur), and that would then be an issue for government to be able to supply these.  Perhaps virus lasts longer on surfaces than currently believed.  But just knowing something about viral infection in general, I can't think of other independent variables that would affect things,  Respiratory viruses spread by either contact or inhalation.  Covid seems to be highly infectious, which means that strenuous use of mitigating factors is needed to slow things down.  Again, slow things down and not completely prevent.  You can't let great be the enemy of good.  The mitigating strategies, on their own are good things (really the only things) we can do right now while waiting for vaccines to be widely distributed.  Vaccines will be great, masks and hand washing and such a re good.  They are not mutually exclusive.

Thanks again. Masks are indeed a tool. They do nothing to the actual virus itself. They’re intention is to stop it’s spread. Again, I’m not making a statement here on whether masks aren’t a good tool. I’m confident they are. 
 

As regards your other hypotheses I’m right there with you. I’m wondering whether we’re wearing the right masks. (Once again, there’s been no recent perceivable change in the number or style of masks people are wearing.) Or, have we actually overlooked surface spread. Or some other variable. SOMETHING has caused the recent spread. It is NOT winter in Southern California. We don’t have winter.I’d love to hear your thoughts. 

[oldmanfan]

2 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Thanks again. Masks are indeed a tool. They do nothing to the actual virus itself. They’re intention is to stop it’s spread. Again, I’m not making a statement here on whether masks aren’t a good tool. I’m confident they are. 
 

As regards your other hypotheses I’m right there with you. I’m wondering whether we’re wearing the right masks. (Once again, there’s been no recent perceivable change in the number or style of masks people are wearing.) Or, have we actually overlooked surface spread. Or some other variable. SOMETHING has caused the recent spread. It is NOT winter in Southern California. We don’t have winter.I’d love to hear your thoughts. 

Ideally we should outfit everyone in the country with N95 masks, as they are the most efficient and can be fitted better than cloth.  The gaiter ones should not be used. That would be my first move if I were running the show

[shoshin]

41 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

I’m glad to have your expertise as insight. I’m not actually making a silly argument about masks. I have no doubt that masks would be part of a solution. But they are of course a tool, not really a solution at all. Relying on the random actions of hundreds of millions of people will only slow the spread, and they certainly have, as we’re rapidly approaching a YEAR of this challenge. 
 

 

Relying on the random acts of individuals and groups is all we have to combat it until now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

41 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

My commentary is asking the community of scientists to go back a step and consider whether they may have overlooked something. The current surge doesn’t appear to be tied to any significant change in the random personal behavior I spoke about above. From my personal, strictly anecdotal observations (in Southern California), people have been more cautious in the last few months, not less. There MUST be another, yet undiscovered, variable to this equation.

 

I can only go from what I see. Summer helped everywhere that is not SoCal. Here's a possible narrative. Summer followed the strictest shutdown we had in the spring: In the spring, we had little knowledge of the virus and there was energy to be diligent in the lockdown efforts. I suspect those efforts yielded a case slowdown. Summer came and cases were lower coming out of spring, distancing was still going on but lots of people were hanging outdoors. Note where cases rose in the summer: Very hot places where people went indoors (South). Cold comes...seeded by a sh##-ton more cases than we had to seed from in January...and more importantly an exhaustion from being locked up and no more ability to be locked up economically...and cases are shooting up. SoCal may benefit from weather but it doesn't benefit from people traveling in from all over and it can't stop the exhaustion from Covid lockdowns. 

 

I have gone out with people and seen relatives this fall that I definitely would not have seen in the spring. My wife sees patient families every day in person where in March and April she was totally remote. We're not in the same mindset we had in April. For the most part, that's OK: Everyone needs to take care of their own selves to get through this. But the aggregate effect is more deaths and hospitalizations. 

[SoCal Deek]

I’m only going to hypothesize here. Could it be that we should be looking to do something internally rather than externally? Masks, had washing and social distancing are all external solutions. They try and prevent the virus from getting inside you. What if the solution was to eat something or take a vitamin or increase the dosage of something that would counteract the virus’ ability to spread inside your body? By FAR, the biggest change (variable) we’ve seen in Southern California is the daily decrease in hours of sunlight. What if there was a way to counteract that? 

[shoshin]

35 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

I’m only going to hypothesize here. Could it be that we should be looking to do something internally rather than externally? Masks, had washing and social distancing are all external solutions. They try and prevent the virus from getting inside you. What if the solution was to eat something or take a vitamin or increase the dosage of something that would counteract the virus’ ability to spread inside your body? By FAR, the biggest change (variable) we’ve seen in Southern California is the daily decrease in hours of sunlight. What if there was a way to counteract that? 

 

For sure vitamin D may play a role but I'd point to the swiss cheese model above. It's not one thing. 

[SoCal Deek]

3 minutes ago, shoshin said:

 

For sure vitamin D may play a role but I'd point to the swiss cheese model above. It's not one thing. 

So should we pushing forward Vitamins  more? It’s rarely talked about 

[shoshin]

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

So should we pushing forward Vitamins  more? It’s rarely talked about 

 

Like hydrochloroquine, no studies show it's effective. 

 

D you get from sun exposure. Not sure if it's as effective swallowing (though I've been taking it for about a year). 

[SoCal Deek]

47 minutes ago, shoshin said:

 

Like hydrochloroquine, no studies show it's effective. 

 

D you get from sun exposure. Not sure if it's as effective swallowing (though I've been taking it for about a year). 

I’m not promoting anything here. All I know is that doing the same thing g and expecting a different result is.... you know the rest. I’m interested to hear what’s being done to determine any common denominators of those in the ICU. There must be a connection.  THAT is science! 

[oldmanfan]

1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

I’m not promoting anything here. All I know is that doing the same thing g and expecting a different result is.... you know the rest. I’m interested to hear what’s being done to determine any common denominators of those in the ICU. There must be a connection.  THAT is science! 

Well, the connection is simple:  the virus.  Why it affects people differently has to do with initial viral load, the patient’s immune system, and co-morbidities.  I’d focus on children and why they can carry a large viral load and still have low incidence of symptoms.

[Big Blitz]

3 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

I’m only going to hypothesize here. Could it be that we should be looking to do something internally rather than externally? Masks, had washing and social distancing are all external solutions. They try and prevent the virus from getting inside you. What if the solution was to eat something or take a vitamin or increase the dosage of something that would counteract the virus’ ability to spread inside your body? By FAR, the biggest change (variable) we’ve seen in Southern California is the daily decrease in hours of sunlight. What if there was a way to counteract that? 

 

 

Been taking Vitamin D and zinc since March.  Advised everyone I knew to do the same.  But that doesn't profit big pharma.  

 

And since I've been a teenager I workout and these days its 3-4x a week if I'm lucky.  After the holidays it will be 5-6.

 

Haven't been sick with even a cold all year.  

 

I usually get the flu in November or December. 

 

Nothing so far.  And I'm out at least 2 or 3 times a week at stores and restaurants and have been since May when we "opened." 

 

 

Americans don't have a Covid problem.  We have an obesity problem.  And an overabundance of self centered narcissism. 

[SoCal Deek]

2 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

Well, the connection is simple:  the virus.  Why it affects people differently has to do with initial viral load, the patient’s immune system, and co-morbidities.  I’d focus on children and why they can carry a large viral load and still have low incidence of symptoms.

Interesting, but we can’t become children....at least not physically.  Our immune system ages with us.