• 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

Rafi said:
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.
Click to expand...

how does that square with people who are immunocompromised (eg transplant recipients) being high risk?
 
My hospice organization called me and asked if I would be able to start volunteering at the end of May. So I guess I don’t need the vaccine.
 
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...

I read somewhere that children's cells don't have the "hook" for the virus to latch onto.
 
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...

I don't understand why you equate lots of people going to Lowe's and grass-mowing staff riding around without face masks on in a truck together with a "complete failure in recommended course of action." Surely you're more educated that this terribly biased line of thinking, right? I mean, if not, maybe the NC State boards would be a better home?

To help bring you up to a socially acceptable level of intelligence, I'll present a few data points to counteract those few yard maintenance guys and the folks at Lowe's you reference:

1- 1.5 million schoolchildren in NC didn't go to school with one another. This helps virus transmission stay lower.
2- 4.9 million churchgoers in NC didn't go to church with one another. This helps virus transmission stay lower.
3- 3.1 million office-based workers didn't go into the office for work. This helps virus transmission stay lower.
4- No one went to a restaurant to sit down and eat. This helps virus transmission stay lower.
5- No one went to a bar to grab drinks. This helps virus transmission stay lower.
6- No one went to a concert, play, musical, or any other similar activity with hundreds of other people. This helps virus transmission stay lower.
7- Almost no one went to an airport, got on a plane, rode a train, rode a bus, or utilized a dense transportation activity. This helps virus transmission stay lower.
8- Businesses who stayed open did not work at normal. The vast majority of them implemented measures to clean more often, socially distance checkout lines, limit capacity, etc.

You see how the above enormous changes resulted in hospitals not being overrun even though some people went to Lowe's?
 
WhatUTalkinBout Willis said:
I don't understand why you equate lots of people going to Lowe's and grass-mowing staff riding around without face masks on in a truck together with a "complete failure in recommended course of action." Surely you're more educated that this terribly biased line of thinking, right? I mean, if not, maybe the NC State boards would be a better home?

To help bring you up to a socially acceptable level of intelligence, I'll present a few data points to counteract those few yard maintenance guys and the folks at Lowe's you reference:

1- 1.5 million schoolchildren in NC didn't go to school with one another. This helps virus transmission stay lower.
2- 4.9 million churchgoers in NC didn't go to church with one another. This helps virus transmission stay lower.
3- 3.1 million office-based workers didn't go into the office for work. This helps virus transmission stay lower.
4- No one went to a restaurant to sit down and eat. This helps virus transmission stay lower.
5- No one went to a bar to grab drinks. This helps virus transmission stay lower.
6- No one went to a concert, play, musical, or any other similar activity with hundreds of other people. This helps virus transmission stay lower.
7- Almost no one went to an airport, got on a plane, rode a train, rode a bus, or utilized a dense transportation activity. This helps virus transmission stay lower.
8- Businesses who stayed open did not work at normal. The vast majority of them implemented measures to clean more often, socially distance checkout lines, limit capacity, etc.

You see how the above enormous changes resulted in hospitals not being overrun even though some people went to Lowe's?
Click to expand...

This. Also no sporting events - all those high school, college and professional mass gatherings stopped.
 
WhatUTalkinBout Willis said:
I don't understand why you equate lots of people going to Lowe's and grass-mowing staff riding around without face masks on in a truck together with a "complete failure in recommended course of action." Surely you're more educated that this terribly biased line of thinking, right? I mean, if not, maybe the NC State boards would be a better home?

To help bring you up to a socially acceptable level of intelligence, I'll present a few data points to counteract those few yard maintenance guys and the folks at Lowe's you reference:

1- 1.5 million schoolchildren in NC didn't go to school with one another. This helps virus transmission stay lower.
2- 4.9 million churchgoers in NC didn't go to church with one another. This helps virus transmission stay lower.
3- 3.1 million office-based workers didn't go into the office for work. This helps virus transmission stay lower.
4- No one went to a restaurant to sit down and eat. This helps virus transmission stay lower.
5- No one went to a bar to grab drinks. This helps virus transmission stay lower.
6- No one went to a concert, play, musical, or any other similar activity with hundreds of other people. This helps virus transmission stay lower.
7- Almost no one went to an airport, got on a plane, rode a train, rode a bus, or utilized a dense transportation activity. This helps virus transmission stay lower.
8- Businesses who stayed open did not work at normal. The vast majority of them implemented measures to clean more often, socially distance checkout lines, limit capacity, etc.

You see how the above enormous changes resulted in hospitals not being overrun even though some people went to Lowe's?
Click to expand...

But it is the same people. The guy going to Lowes is the guy not going to the bar. The guys on the construction crew are the ones not going to the concert. The people still going to work are the ones not going to the movies. So yes their frequency of contact has been reduced, but it has not been eliminated. So if you isolate those with zero exposure and eliminate them from the conversation, there are still millions of people with some recurring and constant exposure. If this was both as contagious AND as deadly as initially (and currently) reported, then the contagiousness and resulting deaths would still be running rampant even with the reduced exposure, because it hasn't been eliminated. But it isn't. Which means that either it isn't as contagious as thought or it is significantly less deadly and/or symptomatic than thought.
 
Rafi said:
> 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).
Click to expand...

Let's look at the US pneumonia season deaths in recent years:

2014-2015 - 131,000
2013-2014 - 126,000
2012-2013 - 138,000

And all of those have generally the same age stratification as Covid. So where was the outcry and social distancing and coordinated response then? Obligatory thanks, Obama.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Let's look at the US pneumonia season deaths in recent years:

2014-2015 - 131,000
2013-2014 - 126,000
2012-2013 - 138,000

And all of those have generally the same age stratification as Covid. So where was the outcry and social distancing and coordinated response then? Obligatory thanks, Obama.
Click to expand...

These numbers are wrong. Where did you get them?
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
But it is the same people. The guy going to Lowes is the guy not going to the bar. The guys on the construction crew are the ones not going to the concert. The people still going to work are the ones not going to the movies. So yes their frequency of contact has been reduced, but it has not been eliminated. So if you isolate those with zero exposure and eliminate them from the conversation, there are still millions of people with some recurring and constant exposure. If this was both as contagious AND as deadly as initially (and currently) reported, then the contagiousness and resulting deaths would still be running rampant even with the reduced exposure, because it hasn't been eliminated. But it isn't. Which means that either it isn't as contagious as thought or it is significantly less deadly and/or symptomatic than thought.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't mean that. The fewer number of contacts, the fewer chances for the infection to spread. It doesn't matter if it is the same or different people having the contacts - the less contact, the less spread. This can't be that hard to understand.
 
awaken said:
I read somewhere that children's cells don't have the "hook" for the virus to latch onto.
Click to expand...

I'd be interested to read that - do you have a link?

Children get infected, they just don't get as sick (or sick at all).
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Let's look at the US pneumonia season deaths in recent years:

2014-2015 - 131,000
2013-2014 - 126,000
2012-2013 - 138,000

And all of those have generally the same age stratification as Covid. So where was the outcry and social distancing and coordinated response then? Obligatory thanks, Obama.
Click to expand...

Nothing in this post is correct.
 
HoosierDeac said:
how does that square with people who are immunocompromised (eg transplant recipients) being high risk?
Click to expand...

Immunosuppressed people are at higher risk for acquiring any infection. There is a thought, though it is not confirmed or completely understood, that immunosuppressed individuals may have a less severe response to COVID19. In fact, one treatment option for COVID19 that is being tested is to suppress the immune system with an IL6 blocking medication (tocilizumab).
 
Pre-cvd19 I typically donned a necktie 1-2 times/ week; last time I had on a tie was a funeral on February 24.
Will be interesting to see when I next don a choke rag, and will be I able to button my shirt collar.
 
DistrictDeacon said:
Nothing in this post is correct.
Click to expand...

FVzsfsU.gif
 
There are more questions than answers and they are good questions but the problem with emerging infection is that to get those answers it takes time often a long time. There is a reason why the entire field of immunology, virology, and microbiology exist in which things that are well known are still studied despite decades of research. Every study usually improves your understanding of something just a little bit, a lot of studies fall into what scientifically is considered the swiss cheese approach, your single project had a ton of holes, but if you pile all the projects together all the holes are covered and you get a complete picture. For something like SARS-COV-2 you could study something like cellular entry with a grant for the next decade and might not have the complete picture.

Why dont children get as sick take your pick write a grant, ACE-2 receptor differences, be it expression pattern, expression level, receptor makeup. This is especially important for initial viral load and entry, do day one viral loads equate to day one adult viral loads. Initial immune response, innate immunity in children is often a greater force than what is found in adults, adults have shifted towards innate immunity supporting adaptive immunity while with developmental immunity the innate system is stronger, does this reduced overall viral levels during onset of infection? The innate profile in children has been shown to be different than adults, is that a major factor? The adaptive immune system in children is slower to react, often has more immune modulators and regulators in place than adults, is that a factor? Are previous exposure patterns a factor, both in adults and children? Children often see more respiratory infections per a year than adults, does this cause a tolerized environment? Does previous exposure skew immune responses poorly in adults, respond to non-neutralizing components stronger, leading to less successful outcomes?
 
European studies showing nicotine may help prevent/lessen the severity of the virus are, um, interesting? Only like 5% of patients at a Paris hospital have been smokers, while roughly 25% of the French population smokes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top