BillStime Posted June 25, 2020 Posted June 25, 2020 30 minutes ago, Warren Zevon said: Translation - check Trump and his friends bank accounts.
123719bwiqrb Posted June 25, 2020 Posted June 25, 2020 33 minutes ago, Warren Zevon said: THIS IS THE ACTUAL CORONABIRUS DEATH TOLL! 1.1M! 1
Warcodered Posted June 25, 2020 Posted June 25, 2020 33 minutes ago, Warren Zevon said: Definitely didn't need any oversight what is this a witch hunt.? 1
Buffalo_Gal Posted June 25, 2020 Posted June 25, 2020 4 minutes ago, GG said: Clearly nobody read the GAO report Read!? Come on... My favorite part of that ap article: </snip> The errors occurred mainly because of a lag in reporting data on who is deceased — a lapse that tax experts say is almost inevitable. </snip>? Bet the next article up is how we should have mail in voting... 1 1
GG Posted June 25, 2020 Posted June 25, 2020 1 minute ago, Buffalo_Gal said: Read!? Come on... My favorite part of that ap article: </snip> The errors occurred mainly because of a lag in reporting data on who is deceased — a lapse that tax experts say is almost inevitable. </snip>? Bet the next article up is how we should have mail in voting... It's even better than that. GAO's suggested fix to this particular problem resides with Legislative, not Executive. 1 1
Buffalo_Gal Posted June 25, 2020 Posted June 25, 2020 Just now, GG said: It's even better than that. GAO's suggested fix to this particular problem resides with Legislative, not Executive. Yeah, that'll happen.
GG Posted June 25, 2020 Posted June 25, 2020 Speaking of numbers. Quote More Than 20 Million Americans May Have Had Coronavirus, Government Says The figure, significantly higher than official case counts, reflects the large number of individuals who have the disease but don’t exhibit symptoms More than 20 million people in the U.S. may have contracted the coronavirus since the start of the outbreak, according to an internal government estimate, a figure that is significantly higher than official case counts and reflects the large number of individuals who have the disease but don’t exhibit symptoms. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate is based on serology testing conducted to determine the presence of antibodies that indicate a person has had the disease, senior administration officials said. The figure is an estimate based on the number of officially confirmed cases—more than 2.3 million in the U.S.—and the average rate of antibodies seen in the serology tests.
123719bwiqrb Posted June 25, 2020 Posted June 25, 2020 19 minutes ago, GG said: Speaking of numbers. Can we hurry this along? Only about 300M to go!
Penfield45 Posted June 25, 2020 Posted June 25, 2020 3 hours ago, GG said: So what? If you're going to compare a country with 4 million sq miles, you should also include a large country that is in Europe. Otherwise, it's cherry picked data to support a crusade? Why aren't they comparing EU to the US Northeast? are you dumb? EU has a LARGER population than America and has far less confirmed cases. what the hell does sq miles have to do with anything lol if anything, EU is far more densely populated than America and still managed to outdo the US in handeling the virus. there is no "crusade". America should be ashamed at how they have handled this pandemic. 2
Penfield45 Posted June 25, 2020 Posted June 25, 2020 1 hour ago, Warren Zevon said: Americas incompetence never ceases to amaze me 2
GG Posted June 25, 2020 Posted June 25, 2020 12 minutes ago, Penfield45 said: are you dumb? EU has a LARGER population than America and has far less confirmed cases. what the hell does sq miles have to do with anything lol if anything, EU is far more densely populated than America and still managed to outdo the US in handeling the virus. there is no "crusade". America should be ashamed at how they have handled this pandemic. It's not only about population. But it doesn't surprise me that you wouldn't understand. If EU is so great, why did the hardest hit countries have double the death rates of US?
Penfield45 Posted June 25, 2020 Posted June 25, 2020 5 minutes ago, GG said: It's not only about population. But it doesn't surprise me that you wouldn't understand. If EU is so great, why did the hardest hit countries have double the death rates of US? double? I'm gonna need some fact check on that but it is because their hospital systems and number of medical care workers aren't close to the number we have. yet..they have found a way to overcome the virus and on the road to recovery.
GG Posted June 25, 2020 Posted June 25, 2020 1 minute ago, Penfield45 said: double? I'm gonna need some fact check on that but it is because their hospital systems and number of medical care workers aren't close to the number we have. yet..they have found a way to overcome the virus and on the road to recovery. Hey moron, the US numbers are slanted by THREE states that fubared the response. If you look at NYS alone, the numbers would be at the top of the world, meaning that the rest of the US handled the crisis very well, thank you very much. Be happy to discuss whatever you want regarding NYS's efforts and results.
Unforgiven Posted June 25, 2020 Posted June 25, 2020 The media across the board is back in lockstep with the covid fear mongering... These guys are predictable as they move from one distraction to another all with one goal in mind. Like an ant colony.
Kangaxx Posted June 25, 2020 Posted June 25, 2020 (edited) NY Gov. Cuomo to FL Gov. DeSantis: ‘You Played Politics with This Virus and You Lost’ https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2020/06/25/ny-gov-cuomo-to-fl-gov-desantis-you-played-politics-with-this-virus-and-you-lost/ Edited June 25, 2020 by BillsFanForReal 1
Magox Posted June 25, 2020 Posted June 25, 2020 Quote HOUSTON – Leaders from the four largest hospital systems in Houston said Thursday that they are in good shape to handle a surge of coronavirus patients if it happens. The CEOs of Houston Methodist, Memorial Hermann Health System, St. Luke’s Health and Texas Children’s Hospital held a virtual news conference aimed at reassuring the public that the systems are ready to handle whatever may come. Quote Dr. Marc Boom, of Houston Methodist, said those numbers don’t fully tell the capacity story. “Just that number is being misinterpreted and, quite frankly, we’re concerned that there is a level of alarm in the community that is unwarranted right now,” Boom said. 1 3
Buffalo Bills Fan Posted June 25, 2020 Posted June 25, 2020 (edited) Studies Report Rapid Loss of COVID-19 Antibodies The results, while preliminary, suggest that survivors of SARS-CoV-2 infection may be susceptible to reinfection within weeks or months. Amanda Heidt Jun 19, 2020 14.5K ABOVE: © ISTOCK.COM, CHRISTOPH BURGSTEDT Apair of studies published this week is shedding light on the duration of immunity following COVID-19, showing patients lose their IgG antibodies—the virus-specific, slower-forming antibodies associated with long-term immunity—within weeks or months after recovery. With COVID-19, most people who become infected do produce antibodies, and even small amounts can still neutralize the virus in vitro, according to earlier work. These latest studies could not determine if a lack of antibodies leaves people at risk of reinfection. One of the studies found that 10 percent of nearly 1,500 COVID-positive patients registered undetectable antibody levels within weeks of first showing symptoms, while the other of 74 patients found they typically lost their antibodies two to three months after recovering from the infection, especially among those who tested positive but were asymptomatic. In contrast, infections caused by coronavirus cousins such as SARS and MERS result in antibodies that remain in the body for nearly a year, according to The New York Times. The first study, published June 16 on the preprint server medRxiv, screened for antibodies in almost 1,500 coronavirus patients in Wuhan, China. The researchers compared their levels to three other groups: nearly 20,000 members of the general population; more than 1,600 patients hospitalized for reasons other than COVID-19; and more than 3,800 medical workers, whom the authors assumed had “inevitably” been exposed to the virus in its early days, meaning they should have developed antibodies. They found that while almost 90 percent of COVID-19 patients had antibodies, roughly 1 percent to 5 percent of individuals in the others groups had them as well. The authors conclude in their paper that the remaining 10 percent of infected patients with no detectable antibodies, combined with the lack of antibodies in healthcare workers, suggest that “after SARS-CoV-2 infection, people are unlikely to produce long-lasting protective antibodies against this virus.” https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/studies-report-rapid-loss-of-covid-19-antibodies-67650 Cousin to this covid19 report says only a year of antibodies only last. Not for sure but really need more studies how long antibodies last. Why I don't comment antibodies until real research. Some say this covid19 only two months antibodies( who knows) Emerg Infect Dis. 2007 Oct; 13(10): 1562–1564. doi: 10.3201/eid1310.070576 PMCID: PMC2851497 PMID: 18258008 Duration of Antibody Responses after Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Li-Ping Wu,* Nai-Chang Wang,* Yi-Hua Chang,* Xiang-Yi Tian,* Dan-Yu Na,* Li-Yuan Zhang,* Lei Zheng,* Tao Lan,† Lin-Fa Wang,‡ and Guo-***** Liang§ Author information Copyright and License information Disclaimer This article has been cited by other articles in PMC. Go to: Abstract Among 176 patients who had had severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), SARS-specific antibodies were maintained for an average of 2 years, and significant reduction of immunoglobulin G–positive percentage and titers occurred in the third year. Thus, SARS patients might be susceptible to reinfection >3 years after initial exposure. Keywords: SARS, convalescent, antibodies, longitudinal study, dispatch Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) represents the first pandemic transmissible disease to emerge in this century. It was caused by a previously unknown coronavirus, the SARS-associated coronavirus (SARS-CoV) (1). SARS-CoV spreads from animals to humans by a rapid adaptation and evolution process (2,3). A large number of closely related viruses are present in wildlife reservoir populations (4–6). Therefore, due to cross-species transmission of the same or a similar coronavirus, SARS could recur. Immune protection against infection with other human coronaviruses, such as OC43 and 229E, is short-lived (7). To assess SARS patients’ risk for future reinfection, we conducted a longitudinal study of immunity in convalescent patients. Go to: The Study Shanxi Province in China was 1 of the SARS epicenters during the 2002–03 outbreaks. For our study, serum samples were taken from patients in 7 designated SARS hospitals in the province during March–August 2003. Follow-up serum samples were taken at 6 months, 1, 2, and 3 years after the onset of symptoms. A total of 176 cases that met the World Health Organization (WHO) SARS case definition (8) and had known transmission history were included in this study. The study was conducted as part of a national SARS control and prevention program; use of serum from human participants was approved by the Committee for SARS Control and Prevention, Department of Science and Technology, the People’s Republic of China. Titers of serum antibodies to SARS-CoV were determined by using a commercially available ELISA kit (BJI-GBI Biotechnology, Beijing, China). The ELISA was based on an inactivated preparation of whole-virus lysate. The kit was the first commercial kit approved by the Chinese Food and Drug Administration for specific detection of SARS-CoV antibodies and has been widely used in several studies (9–11). Manufacturer’s instructions were followed without modification. Briefly, for every ELISA plate, 1 blank, 1 positive, and 2 negative controls were included. For detection of immunoglobulin G (IgG), a 1:10 dilution of testing serum (100 μL) was added to antigen-coated wells, and the plate was incubated at 37oC for 30 min. Horseradish peroxide (HRP)–conjugated antihuman IgG (100 μL) was then added for detection of bound antibodies. For detection of IgM, the incubation of primary antibodies was extended to 60 min, followed by detection with HRP-conjugated antihuman IgM. Optical density (OD) readings were deemed valid only when the negative control OD was <0.10 and the positive control was >0.50 on the same ELISA plate. The cutoff for IgG and IgM determination was defined as 0.13 and 0.11, respectively, plus OD of the negative control. When the OD of the negative control was <0.05, 0.05 was used for the calculation. In this study, the OD readings of negative controls from different testing were consistently <0.05, so the cutoff ODs for IgG and IgM were 0.18 and 0.16, respectively. Serum samples that had an OD greater than or equal to the cutoff value were considered positive. Weak positive samples (i.e., OD<2× cutoff value) were retested in duplicate on the same day; only reproducible positive results were included in the final analysis. All data were processed by using Excel version 7.0 (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA, USA) and SPSS software version 10 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Among the cohort, 163 (92.61%) of 176 (χ2 = 200.11, p = 0.000002) were IgG positive, which indicated that most patients who met the WHO case definition were indeed infected with SARS-CoV. As shown in the Table, at ≈7 days after the onset of symptoms, the percentage who were IgG positive was ≈11.80%. This percentage continued to increase, reached 100% at 90 days, and remained largely unchanged up to 200 days. Furthermore, after 1 and 2 years 93.88% and 89.58% of patients, respectively, were IgG positive, which suggests that the immune responses were maintained in >90% of patients for 2 years. However, 3 years later, ≈50% of the convalescent population had no SARS-CoV–specific IgG. The OD changes correlated with the changes to the IgG-positive percentage, although the rate of change varied. Both the OD readings (0.93) and positive percentages peaked at 90–120 days; however, the rate of reduction of the average OD readings was much faster, dropping by 22% (0.73) and 40% (0.54) at 1 and 2 years, respectively, after symptom onset (Figure 1). Figure 1 Change of immunoglobulin G (IgG) patterns among 176 convalescent severe acute respiratory syndrome patients with known transmission history. See the Table for number of samples used for the calculation at each time point. OD, optical density. A similar observation was obtained for IgM trends in this same cohort. The percentage of patients who were IgM positive within the first 7 days was 21.4% and peaked at 76.2% after 21–30 days (Table). The patterns of IgM-positive percentage and average OD readings were similar; both peaked at 21–30 days. After 60 days, the average OD readings dropped to 0.167, close to the cutoff value of 0.160. Table Cumulative rates of SARS-CoV antibodies among 176 SARS patients with known transmission histories* Time after symptom onset, d IgG IgM† No. samples tested No. positive samples (%) Average OD No. samples tested No. positive samples (%) Average OD 0–7 17 2 (11.76) 0.046 14 3 (21.43) 0.136 8–14 26 10 (38.46) 0.190 22 14 (63.64) 0.312 15–20 22 17 (77.27) 0.351 19 12 (63.16) 0.477 21–30 36 33 (91.67) 0.493 21 16 (76.19) 0.560 31–60 72 67 (93.06) 0.627 22 14 (63.64) 0.320 61–90 35 33 (94.29) 0.745 15 5 (33.33) 0.167 91–120 11 11 (100.00) 0.965 ND ND ND 121–210 23 23 (100.00) 0.932 ND ND ND 211–365 49 46 (93.88) 0.734 ND ND ND 366–763 96 86 (89.58) 0.535 ND ND ND 764–1,265 28 15 (53.57) 0.250 ND ND ND *SARS-CoV, severe acute respiratory syndrome–associated coronavirus; Ig, immunoglobulin; OD, optical density; ND, not determined because for most samples the IgM readings already reached background level on day 90. †For some patients, we did not have enough serum to test for IgM after testing for IgG; hence, a smaller number of serum samples were tested for IgM than for IgG. Among the cohort of patients with known transmission histories, we were able to obtain a complete collection of serum samples from 18 patients at 6 months, 1, 2, and 3 years. The IgG levels of these 18 patients were analyzed separately to obtain an IgG trend that more accurately represented convalescent SARS patients (Figure 2). All 18 patients had positive IgG at 6 months and at 1 year (i.e., 100% positive); only 1 patient became IgG negative at 2 years. However, at 3 years, the positive percentage dropped to 55.56%. The reduction of OD values mimicked that of the positive percentage, again at a faster rate. The average OD readings dropped from 0.94 at 6 months to 0.64 at 1 year, which represents a reduction of 33.33%. The OD further dropped to 0.52 (45.83% reduction) by 2 years and to 0.25 by 3 years. Figure 2 Change of immunoglobulin G (IgG) patterns among 18 convalescent severe acute respiratory syndrome patients with a complete collection of sequential serum samples at the time points shown. The 18 patients were selected from the cohort of 176 patients for whom transmission history was known. OD, optical density. Go to: Conclusions To our knowledge, the 3-year follow-up conducted in this study is the longest longitudinal study ever reported. With a large number of patients who had confirmed transmission history (176) and a complete dataset for 18, the level of confidence is high that the results obtained in this study are representative for convalescent SARS patients. Similar results have been reported from longitudinal studies of SARS patients with smaller cohort size (18–98 patients) and shorter follow-up period (240 days to 2 years) (9–14). The general trend of IgM peaking at ≈1 month after symptom onset and IgG peaking at 2–4 months was consistent among different studies. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2851497/ Cousin to covid19 antibodies in the past. Real research on Edited June 25, 2020 by Buffalo Bills Fan
shoshin Posted June 25, 2020 Posted June 25, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Buffalo Bills Fan said: Studies Report Rapid Loss of COVID-19 Antibodies The results, while preliminary, suggest that survivors of SARS-CoV-2 infection may be susceptible to reinfection within weeks or months. Amanda Heidt Jun 19, 2020 14.5K ABOVE: © ISTOCK.COM, CHRISTOPH BURGSTEDT Apair of studies published this week is shedding light on the duration of immunity following COVID-19, showing patients lose their IgG antibodies—the virus-specific, slower-forming antibodies associated with long-term immunity—within weeks or months after recovery. With COVID-19, most people who become infected do produce antibodies, and even small amounts can still neutralize the virus in vitro, according to earlier work. These latest studies could not determine if a lack of antibodies leaves people at risk of reinfection. One of the studies found that 10 percent of nearly 1,500 COVID-positive patients registered undetectable antibody levels within weeks of first showing symptoms, while the other of 74 patients found they typically lost their antibodies two to three months after recovering from the infection, especially among those who tested positive but were asymptomatic. It's not a large study and it has some testing weaknesses but if this turns out to be the case, it would suggest that the "let's go get herd immunity" is not going to work. I hope the IgG detection was flawed or not sensitive enough--the authors not that may be an issue. But they also note that other similar viruses do not always produce long term immunity. Come on vaccines.* *I know the use of vaccines offends many posters in this thread. I hope you change your minds. Edited June 25, 2020 by shoshin 1
Recommended Posts