• 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

Strickland33 said:
Yesterday was the highest number of Coronavirus deaths thus far in the US, if I heard the news report correctly.
Click to expand...

The very same news that’s driving this media circus.

Also, we just raised the death estimates.
 
South Korea CDC concluding that you cannot get reinfected.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Yet despite the me me me shit show, despite all day every day at Lowes looking like Black Friday on roids, despite NC getting an "F" in social distancing (https://www.newsobserver.com/news/coronavirus/article242383226.html), despite plenty of people getting the Essential Business Participation Trophy and working as normal, despite having an imbecile as a President with no plan ..... despite all of that we are two months in and NC has 11,500 cases and 420 deaths in a state of 10.5 million people. If we suck so bad at this, then why haven't we been overrun with infection and death and hospital overcrowding as the experts predicted? Because it is exactly what I said in the first post of this thread: it is a worldwide 45 degree CMS snow day.

The virus clearly sucks. It sucks to get it, it certainly sucks to die from it. But, given our complete failures at the recommended course of action and the fact that the results are nowhere near as dire as what were predicted by the so-called experts, the societal reaction and resulting collateral damage has far outweighed the problem, relative to other serious societal issues. This is a media-driven circus.
Click to expand...

Your takes are absolute trash.

70,000 people have died in the US. We'll be over 100,000 deaths in 2-3 weeks. The US has not seen the peak and neither has North Carolina.
 
bym051d said:
South Korea CDC concluding that you cannot get reinfected.
Click to expand...

I don't know why the WHO ever put out their skeptical statement, it was a huge hedge that was never based in reality. The most likely scenario all along was that you were going to be protected, now how long it takes for that protection to wane is anyone's guess but it certainly would be in the months to years range at a minimum. Even if true protection wanes a second infection also had the most likely outcome of being less severe than the first simply because of immunological memory, there's only a few cases where reinfection is worse than initial infection.
 
Louis Gossett Jr said:
I don't know why the WHO ever put out their skeptical statement, it was a huge hedge that was never based in reality. The most likely scenario all along was that you were going to be protected, now how long it takes for that protection to wane is anyone's guess but it certainly would be in the months to years range at a minimum. Even if true protection wanes a second infection also had the most likely outcome of being less severe than the first simply because of immunological memory, there's only a few cases where reinfection is worse than initial infection.
Click to expand...

Any idea how long protection lasts in similar viruses?
 
BiffTannen said:
certainly would be in the months to years range at a minimum
Click to expand...

That was the guess, but not necessarily the answer. He didn’t say based on other similar viruses. Could be all viruses averaged.
 
Hard to say because every virus is different and its hard to do protection studies in a human population with "rare" disease. The closest we have to this would be MERS and SARS, some followup studies with MERS found neutralizing antibodies 3 years later for SARS it was 2-3 years. Both of those are somewhat different because of mortality, if anything the ability of people to remain asymptomatic points towards easier neutralization of COVID-19. If you wanted a best educated guess, true protection 2-4 years, with secondary infection resulting in a weaker overall disease state and a mortality rate cut in at least half. The caveat would be mutations, but this family of viruses the overall mutation rate is low and most likely neutralization is coming through ACE-2 receptor blocking, so any changes by the virus would most likely be deleterious.
 
I read that no coronavirus has a vaccine yet, and SARS and MERS were eradicated through tracking and isolation. Is there a now a push to get SARS and MERS vaccines now that we're fast-tracking COVID-19?

Seems to me something like this should be included in flu shots every other year or so.
 
awaken said:
I read that no coronavirus has a vaccine yet, and SARS and MERS were eradicated through tracking and isolation. Is there a now a push to get SARS and MERS vaccines now that we're fast-tracking COVID-19?

Seems to me something like this should be included in flu shots every other year or so.
Click to expand...

There are no coronavirus vaccines for humans, but there are for animals.
 
Rafi said:
Your takes are absolute trash.

70,000 people have died in the US. We'll be over 100,000 deaths in 2-3 weeks. The US has not seen the peak and neither has North Carolina.
Click to expand...

So 0.03% of the population, the majority of whom are from unique, extremely dense living areas. Again, that sucks, but does it justify the level of response and the nationwide collateral damage?
 
The world of vaccines is when you enter the world of pharmaceutical profits. Vaccines when all said and done are not profitable in comparison to therapeutics. Every large company has vaccine divisions but they either work on something that enough people will consume to make a profit off of or they work on something supported by government grants, is charitable and buys them good will. For truly large pharma companies the R&D component is relatively small in scale say compared to marketing of drugs they already have in the pipeline. Every company needs to hit on something that will be their money maker through the life of a patent and then hit on something else, if not usually they fold into another company that does have something and around and around it goes. Its actually only gotten worse where larger companies with enough money really don't do anything in house, they will go out buy startups or promising drugs, vaccines, and the like and if they do it prematurely and it doesnt look like a profit will be made the whole new division will be axed.

The idea that there are vaccines for HIV or things but they arent release isnt reality, but the idea that promising research that wont turn a profit is just abruptly stopped is the reality everywhere. The shortsightedness is from a culture of answering to yearly profit and growth, you can't wait the 10 years for development anymore. Sometimes a drug will be discovered, put a patent, actually work, then determine that the pricing structure doesnt work and its not profitable to generate and sell, and into the trashbin it goes. For something like SARS and MERS there was no profit because not enough people to market it to, so research stopped. For COVID-19 its a race for the best vaccine because the winner sees the simple model of demand equals instant profit.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
So 0.03% of the population, the majority of whom are from unique, extremely dense living areas. Again, that sucks, but does it justify the level of response and the nationwide collateral damage?
Click to expand...

> 100,000 deaths, which could have hit with rapid succession if not for social distancing (and still may)? Yes, it justifies the response. Now the response could have been much smarter and coordinated if we didn't have an absolute moron in charge (non-politically speaking, of course).
 
IHME model up to 135,000 projected deaths now. We can probably stop taking that one seriously.
 
I keep hearing about how children age 0 to 18 are essentially not at risk unless they have contributing factors (asthma, autoimmune disorders, etc...). Can anyone answer WHY children aren't at risk? What is it about a younger host that the virus just up and peaces out?
 
Liquid Karma said:
I keep hearing about how children age 0 to 18 are essentially not at risk unless they have contributing factors (asthma, autoimmune disorders, etc...). Can anyone answer WHY children aren't at risk? What is it about a younger host that the virus just up and peaces out?
Click to expand...

It’s not known. It may have to do with their weaker immune response (they haven’t been exposed to as much as adults have), as it is thought that the immune response to COVID is what is so deadly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top