Crazy (and not-so-crazy) shit about Covid-19

[roger hao]

Russia Plasma Treatment -

[roger hao]

[roger hao]

For all the intelligencia constantly posting about numbers -
Here you go -

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/07/15/florida-coronavirus-tests-hospital-disputes-100-positive-report/5445139002/

[Steve James]

"In recent days, the Florida Department of Health noticed that some smaller, private labs weren’t reporting negative test result data to the state. The Department immediately began working with those labs to ensure that all results were being reported in order to provide comprehensive and transparent data."

But, there are numbers, and then there are hospitals. Maybe the labs are wrong. This is what's on the news.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MbLlRNVq3M

Ok, everyone's lying. Oh well, just wear a mask, and suck up the indignity.

[everything]

it's good they're correcting it.

agree on hospitalizations / ICU usage as the main "metric" to be worried about.

[LaoDan]

Dark matter of biology mat have more to do with areas deemed successful
dealing with virus than actions taken -

He says “what the government does is incredibly important” although governments do not have answers to all of the possible complexities of the situation and are therefore working off of the limited information that they have at the time when policies are enacted. His model tries to illustrate that there are many possible factors in populations that government policies will not affect. This is not really unknown, and we know that different individuals will respond differently to being infected (e.g., not 100% will die from this virus). But most governments wish to reduce the number of individuals that die (unnecessarily) from a disease outbreak rather than focusing on those that remain inherently immune or less significantly vulnerable to the disease (for whatever of various reasons).

One problem with his model is that it uses the idea that the majority of susceptible people will self-isolate (like other sick populations are typically expected to do, including individuals who contract the flu, etc. who voluntarily stay home and therefore do not contribute to the spread of the virus) until it is safe to go out (i.e., after they have recovered from their illness). Their model assumes that those individuals who are vulnerable to the virus, but that have not yet been exposed, will remain isolated for the duration. We know from the behavior of people in the USA, and other locations in the world, that this is not what happened. The model is from before June 4 (when the interview was posted), which is before many of the more recent knowledge about this particular virus became known (e.g., pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic spread which would negate an important assumption of self isolation that his model uses, susceptibility to re-infections, etc.).

The pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic spread makes this virus different than what we are used to, and therefore, if these characteristics are not included in a model, makes the particular model less useful.

Herd (or population) immunity would be a desirable situation, but the increasing rates of hospitalizations show that we are not there yet, despite what the model, talked about in the video, predicted. Although sometimes herd immunity can be conferred when less than 70% of the population achieves immunity, this virus is more contagious than typical, and has other characteristics that lead me to suspect that the required level for herd immunity would likely be higher (as much as 90% of the population). The model he used predicted that 50% of the population may already (as of the time of his model run) inherently be immune, which I think is unrealistically high considering the characteristics of this novel virus.

For comparison, during the “Spanish flu” pandemic of 1918, where the worldwide population was lower than now [~1.5 billion], and there was less widespread travel and therefore less rapid spread, about 1/3 of the world population is estimated to have contracted the virus. If herd immunity for the novel coronavirus is assumed to be the same as for the “Spanish flu” (where interventions were only social isolation – no mask wearing or disinfectants, no vaccines or drug therapies, etc. were used to slow the viral spread...) that would mean that 1/3 of the current world population of ~7.8 billion, or at least ~2.6 billion people, may be vulnerable to the current virus. Are we even close to that number yet? If not, then we are likely to be well below the level (based on a historic H1N1 viral pandemic’s numbers) needed for herd immunity.

The video talks about social isolation (which I addressed earlier) but not about things like wearing masks. Numerous studies have shown that wearing masks significantly reduces the spread of this virus. Until herd immunity is achieved, mitigation measures will likely be needed.

The best scientific studies include control populations to compare the test population with. The more representative these control populations, the better for the results. If large and diverse enough, representative control populations will control for various susceptibility factors like age, health conditions, blood types, skin colors, vitamin D levels, different diets, different jobs, different political stances, different religions, etc. These are the “dark matter” factors that are being discussed in the model used for the video interview. The controls used in any scientific study are very important to understand.

[everything]

Recent news says herd immunity may be unlikely since if you develop antibodies during your covid, they don't seem to stay around for long (meaning you aren't actually immune to catching it again, meaning you don't protect the herd or the herd doesn't protect you).

[Steve James]

Herd immunity means that, when N percentage of the population has antibodies, that percentage is immune. So, it is harder for the virus to spread. If 70% if the population are immune, it's less likely for the remaining 30% to become infected. So, for ex., the more people who are vaccinated, the fewer people will catch the flu.

Of course, we don't have a vaccine yet --though one might be a few months away. That means that the only way to reach 70% immunity is for 70% to become infected. But, the whole idea of herd immunity is that it ultimately slows the spread of the virus and reduces the effect of the virus on those (who have been vaccinated and have immunity already). We will probably get to a 70% or higher infection rate. That's not the same as herd immunity. It just means a lot of sick people.

The school opening situation is very complicated and a potential disaster unless it's coordinated. Some parents will be demanding that schools open, without masks, and they will send their children unmasked. Otoh, some parents will refuse to send their kids to schools where precautions are not required. On top of that, there's the children --which people seem to forget-- who are old enough to watch the news, and who are scared. Not to mention those who will simply not take anything seriously because they are children. It's going to be up to the adults. Um, you know, the people with the responsibility.

[Trick]

Recent news says herd immunity may be unlikely since if you develop antibodies during your covid, they don't seem to stay around for long (meaning you aren't actually immune to catching it again, meaning you don't protect the herd or the herd doesn't protect you).

That’s really good news for B.Gates and his vaccination agenda....

[Steve James]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGDNaB6fZCU

[LaoDan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGDNaB6fZCU

Yea, too bad the virus doesn’t watch Fox news or listen to political spin and posturing! But maybe the public can be kept ignorant by reducing testing (or the reports from testing) so that the numbers of CONFIRMED cases is kept lower. Perhaps then it may seem better! [Yes, this is sarcasm.]

[roger hao]

T-cell immunity / herd immunity -

[roger hao]

LaoDan -
While at the same time Gov Cuomo was doing this -

[Giles]

Recent news says herd immunity may be unlikely since if you develop antibodies during your covid, they don't seem to stay around for long (meaning you aren't actually immune to catching it again, meaning you don't protect the herd or the herd doesn't protect you).

That’s really good news for B.Gates and his vaccination agenda....

For your reading pleasure...

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bill-gates-id2020/

With an encore, if you feel inclined:
https://www.snopes.com/collections/coronavirus-gates-foundation/

[Ian C. Kuzushi]

Covidiots are real.

Working memory is a cognitive system with a limited capacity that can hold information temporarily. Working memory is important for reasoning and the guidance of decision-making and behavior.

“Noncompliance with social distancing during the early stage of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic poses a great challenge to the public health system. These noncompliance behaviors partly reflect people’s concerns for the inherent costs of social distancing while discounting its public health benefits. We propose that this oversight may be associated with the limitation in one’s mental capacity to simultaneously retain multiple pieces of information in working memory (WM) for rational decision making that leads to social-distancing compliance. We tested this hypothesis in 850 United States residents during the first 2 wk following the presidential declaration of national emergency because of the COVID-19 pandemic. We found that participants’ social-distancing compliance at this initial stage could be predicted by individual differences in WM capacity, partly due to increased awareness of benefits over costs of social distancing among higher WM capacity individuals. Critically, the unique contribution of WM capacity to the individual differences in social-distancing compliance could not be explained by other psychological and socioeconomic factors (e.g., moods, personality, education, and income levels).”

https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020 ... grc-zTL0Ak