• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Non-Political Coronavirus Thread

Agreed. At least that way people can start quarantining.
 
any smarter science/epidimiologist folks have an opinion on whether this study is any good? https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/08/04/science.abd3871

(my layman's understanding is that they have identified cross-reactive t-cells with covid19 from other coronavirus exposures aka common colds, which explains why we see such a varied response to covid19 across the population)
 
Harvard doctor wants cheaper, perhaps less accurate tests instead of the current slower, more accurate tests
https://www.yahoo.com/news/most-of-...ually-work-and-stop-the-spread-154815346.html

What do they board scientists think?

What we have now is clearly useless in the context of getting results back in a reasonable amount of time. The problem is that just because what we are doing now is a huge failure doesn't mean something that's cheaper and less accurate would be any better, it would just be completely dependent on the test. The biggest factor would be the timeline of test sensitivity in relation to viral progression. PCR is always going to be the most accurate and the most sensitive. Additionally you can do the PCR based test in under 2 hours its just that a lot of places aren't setup for that, and you can't do that at the current infection level. The rapid diagnostic tests won't be great if people take them, think they are negative and then go about their life like normal (with the way our response has been we know that will be the case), second the rapid tests won't be great if they miss the peak transmission rate (we already miss it with the testing we have now). So theoretically rapid tests would be the way to go, basically any point of care diagnostic is what is always the ultimate goal, making one that is actually worth it is a whole different complicated story.
 
any smarter science/epidimiologist folks have an opinion on whether this study is any good? https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/08/04/science.abd3871

(my layman's understanding is that they have identified cross-reactive t-cells with covid19 from other coronavirus exposures aka common colds, which explains why we see such a varied response to covid19 across the population)

Couldn't scientists find the common cold coronavirus that elicits the same t cell response?
 
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a...t_the_media_continues_to_besmirch_143875.html

There are now 53 studies that show positive results of hydroxychloroquine in COVID infections. There are 14 global studies that show neutral or negative results -- and 10 of them were of patients in very late stages of COVID-19, where no antiviral drug can be expected to have much effect. Of the remaining four studies, two come from the same University of Minnesota author. The other two are from the faulty Brazil paper, which should be retracted, and the fake Lancet paper, which was.

Millions of people are taking or have taken hydroxychloroquine in nations that have managed to get their national pandemic under some degree of control. Two recent, large, early-use clinical trials have been conducted by the Henry Ford Health System and at Mount Sinai showing a 51% and 47% lower mortality, respectively, in hospitalized patients given hydroxychloroquine. A recent study from Spain published on July 29, two days before Margaret Sullivan’s strafing of “fringe doctors,” shows a 66% reduction in COVID mortality in patients taking hydroxychloroquine. No serious side effects were reported in these studies and no epidemic of heartbeat abnormalities.
 
Couldn't scientists find the common cold coronavirus that elicits the same t cell response?

Yeah that was one hypothesis I was thinking about, would it be worth it to purposefully spread around/expose people to certain common cold viruses that can give you these cross-reactive t cells? I'm guessing it would take longer to figure that out for sure and not worth the risk though ultimately (I feel like elderly populations still have a pretty significant morbidity rate with even common colds), vs vaccine timelines we're looking at.
 
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a...t_the_media_continues_to_besmirch_143875.html

There are now 53 studies that show positive results of hydroxychloroquine in COVID infections. There are 14 global studies that show neutral or negative results -- and 10 of them were of patients in very late stages of COVID-19, where no antiviral drug can be expected to have much effect. Of the remaining four studies, two come from the same University of Minnesota author. The other two are from the faulty Brazil paper, which should be retracted, and the fake Lancet paper, which was.

Millions of people are taking or have taken hydroxychloroquine in nations that have managed to get their national pandemic under some degree of control. Two recent, large, early-use clinical trials have been conducted by the Henry Ford Health System and at Mount Sinai showing a 51% and 47% lower mortality, respectively, in hospitalized patients given hydroxychloroquine. A recent study from Spain published on July 29, two days before Margaret Sullivan’s strafing of “fringe doctors,” shows a 66% reduction in COVID mortality in patients taking hydroxychloroquine. No serious side effects were reported in these studies and no epidemic of heartbeat abnormalities.

What’s your point? Hydroxychloroquine is available for doctors to prescribe. Nobody is stopping it.
 
What’s the end goal with constantly still pushing hydroxychloroquine? Is it an attempt to fool people, like “there’s a miracle cure that totally exists but the evil Dems and “science” would rather you die!!!” in order to distract from their very real failures at doing anything substantive? So a political trick? ...actually yeah that’s probably exactly it. Well you can fool pubs but you can’t exactly trick a virus into thinking it’s cured. So what’s the end goal? Have they even thought that far ahead, other than past November?
 
Couldn't scientists find the common cold coronavirus that elicits the same t cell response?

That’s not exactly how it works. For starters, we don’t know what a protective T cell response is for COVID-19. Just because there is cross-reactivity doesn’t mean those memory cells would be effective at fighting the virus. It is the nature of the memory response that matters, not just the presence of one. Same thing for antibodies. There are lots of antibodies in severe COVID so it isn’t an issue of antibody generation but that the antibodies generated aren’t effective (relatively poor neutralization, limited somatic hypermutation, defective T cell help). A recent paper showed that many of the SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies (determined by single cell B cell receptor sequencing) share the same heavy chain variable region meaning there is likely lower breadth of antibody variability in COVID-19 as well.

Also while scientists are finding cross-reactive clones in a large frequency of subjects, the frequency is very low within those subjects. So again it isn’t clear that such cross-reactive cells would mediate immunity in the sense most discuss here (protection from infection). They would certainly be expected to contribute to an immune response (what immunologists normally mean when we talk about immunity vs being immune) but generating an immune response isn’t the issue with COVID-19. It is generating the right immune response that is the issue.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/...nity-is-the-pandemics-central-mystery/614956/

I mainly include the link for the joke at the beginning. But it also seems like a good article. Immunology is, in fact, complex and dealing with a novel emerging pathogen makes it more complex. Sorry if that ruffles the feathers of the 2&2s of the world but we are learning as we go and have already learned as much about this virus as most other pathogens in very little time, research wise. Science changes, it has to by its very nature.
 
Also fuck you and the GOP for making me have to type out that billion letter word. I’m surprised they haven’t tried to use some catchy shorthand yet. I bet trump spends more time per day practicing how to say the word than actually thinking of ways to stop the pandemic.
 
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a...t_the_media_continues_to_besmirch_143875.html

There are now 53 studies that show positive results of hydroxychloroquine in COVID infections. There are 14 global studies that show neutral or negative results -- and 10 of them were of patients in very late stages of COVID-19, where no antiviral drug can be expected to have much effect. Of the remaining four studies, two come from the same University of Minnesota author. The other two are from the faulty Brazil paper, which should be retracted, and the fake Lancet paper, which was.

Millions of people are taking or have taken hydroxychloroquine in nations that have managed to get their national pandemic under some degree of control. Two recent, large, early-use clinical trials have been conducted by the Henry Ford Health System and at Mount Sinai showing a 51% and 47% lower mortality, respectively, in hospitalized patients given hydroxychloroquine. A recent study from Spain published on July 29, two days before Margaret Sullivan’s strafing of “fringe doctors,” shows a 66% reduction in COVID mortality in patients taking hydroxychloroquine. No serious side effects were reported in these studies and no epidemic of heartbeat abnormalities.

This is, not correct. Some of us have taken some time explaining why further up the thread, but briefly, the only high quality trials that have been performed show no evidence of benefit.
 
AP Calc was the only class I got a straight up F in

fun times
I had Cs in AP calc with an F one semister. Finished the AP exam a little more than an hour knowing that I made a five. Our AP Calculus teacher was a motherfuker but you knew your stuff.
 
Also fuck you and the GOP for making me have to type out that billion letter word. I’m surprised they haven’t tried to use some catchy shorthand yet. I bet trump spends more time per day practicing how to say the word than actually thinking of ways to stop the pandemic.

He knows how to say an anti-malaria drug better than Thailand.
 
Again, this just proves that you can’t have a non-political COVID discussion. Republicans continue to ignore reality and push false narratives to dismiss the severity of the pandemic and discredit the medical and public health communities (the experts).
The movement to fight against the things we can do to mitigate risk is a rube movement.
 
Why chloroquine? Looks at article link and where it comes from, oh real clear politics, there’s your answer.
 
I had Cs in AP calc with an F one semister. Finished the AP exam a little more than an hour knowing that I made a five. Our AP Calculus teacher was a motherfuker but you knew your stuff.

The only reason I did well in AP Calc (the class) is because my teacher graded our exams the same way they grade the AP Calc AP Exam. Even if you made a mistake early in the problem, she followed your work through to the end to see that you knew the process, and you only missed a couple points for getting the one *part* of the problem wrong. I can't remember if I got a 4 or 5 on the exam (I think a 4); whatever it was, it was enough to get out of taking calc at Wake... so instead I ended up in stats with Prof. Jesse Gaylord May. FML.

As for hydroxychloroquine.... zero issues if a doctor decides that's the best course of treatment for a patient, just like any med could decided upon by a doctor to be the best course of treatment in a given case. That's NOT THE SAME THING as declaring it is a cure, though, and that's what dumb right-wing nutters are trying to claim as part of the Big Dem Conspiracy. Idiots. (edit to add: I'm also going on record in saying that most studies being used to tout its efficacy are not good studies... but I'm only getting my info from epidemiologists, so take that with whatever grain of salt you choose.)
 
Last edited:
I’m all in on this 2&2 for leebs trade.
 
This is, not correct. Some of us have taken some time explaining why further up the thread, but briefly, the only high quality trials that have been performed show no evidence of benefit.

Fuck you. You don’t have any basis to disagree with DR. KNOWELL!!!!!
 
New estimates are at 290k dead come December 1
 
Back
Top