All things CoronaVirus

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://elemental.medium.com/a-supercom ... cb8eba9d63

Thanks for this. The RAS has always been on my "list" of things that are out of whack, especially with how the virus binds to the cell. What I never thought of was Bradykinin. I am certainly glad there are smarter people than me looking a this thing.

Here is a link to a paper, small study, using a kinin receptor antagonist in the treatment of patients: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamane ... le/2769237

Thanks for posting that link.

[TNLAX]

As an anecdotal, and I am not a scientist, Dr., etc. In 1998, I was a USMCR with Weapons Company 25th Marines after 5.5 yrs in the tip of the spear with 1st Bn., 6th Marines 2MARDIV. Back then as a general rule, I never went to the doctor (my old sawbones dad was good enough). In the summer between my IL and 2L years at law school, I had the most ridiculous case of something (maybe narcolepsy (if that is a thing)). No energy, just wanted to nap, which I did all the time. It was brutal. I worried that I had Lyme, AIDs (had been to Olongapo City in 88), Cancer, Malaria, I literally just wanted to lay in bed and sleep forever. It lasted for a month or two. No f'n clue what was the cause (29 Palms water maybe), but I had something. Was really worried about my prospects for 2L. But I got over that just as fall semester started and I was good to go. Who the f' knows. All these Covid novel theories about permanent impacts on health, like Doc B sprouts, he has no clue.

Unknown,

This is a great post, thanks for the personal insight. These theories about permanent impacts on health, are just theories for now. It's the hyperfocus on this virus from the MSM that has unfortunately changed the way certain people accept the information that is disseminated.

Go Twins!
JoeMauer89!

The dangerous, ignorant misinformation here really needs to stop.

COVID-19 can permanently injure the lungs in some patients.

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/ ... -the-lungs

Other COVID-19 patients have experienced cardiovascular complications like stroke.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/N ... 1599044905

Of course, there is nothing more permanent than death, and nearly 190,000 have died from COVID-19.

You two should be banned for your dangerously ignorant and misinformed posts. I know the Administrator is reluctant to do that, but a warning should at least be in order here.

There is nothing more dangerous than misinformation in a pandemic.

DocBarrister

The first 4 words from the linked article "Like other respiratory illnesses" sums up a lot of peoples feelings that surround COVID-19. I would bet everyone on this forum understands and appreciates that COVID-19 can harm individuals, but doesn't harm the vast majority, well over 99% of the population. We think there has been a gross over reach by government that has filtered thru the MSM and picked up by many.

It wasn't to long ago that the experts told us to wear rubber gloves for protection. We know now that this doesn't help protect the spread of the virus. There is plenty of misinformation to go around. But we do know, that if I don't want to get COVID I can shelter in place, never leave my home and live a very isolated life. If I want to take some risk I can leave my home and go about my daily routine.

Here is another example of the informed changing their opinions as to how to handle this virus.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/25/heal ... g-cdc.html

But please don't take away others opinions because you disagree with them.

Hope everyone stays healthy and safe.

1% of 330,000,000 = 3,300,000 dead Americans

The past ten years in the United States, we have averaged a little more than 2.8 million deaths. Will we have more deaths this year then we have had the past ten years? Maybe. But I would wager a dollar that if we do, it won't be dramatically higher, maybe 5% higher than average. We will have to wait and see.

1% of people who have had the corona virus have not died and will not die. Conservative estimates are that more than 50 million Americans have been exposed to the virus already.

About 3% of confirmed COVID-19 cases have already resulted in death. Even with the limited mitigation measures taken, 190,000 Americans have died. Without the mitigation measures, the death toll would have been many times that.

The callousness and indifference to the mass deaths of fellow Americans is truly repugnant and disturbing.

DocBarrister

So one of the most informed people in our government, Speaker Pelosi, who happens to be 80 years old, finds it safe to go out and get her hair done without wearing a mask. What does this tell you?

[MDlaxfan76]

what science is settled?
and yeah, who said we won't figure it out?

This is all wrong


An infected person can’t contaminate another person. A mask doesn’t help at all.

who has said those things? did youth just say that?

(if he said it in times prior, i didn't pick up on it. but i didn't see him do it today fo sho)

You asked what science was settled

well, you said simply "masks".
so you know i think you missed there.

There is plenty of settled science regarding the virus but not all of the science is settled. Not sure of how many areas in science where it is completely settled. I believe some aspects of relativity are being questioned.

and one of those, to me at least, is how deep infection is. which relates to "immunity". at least for now. immunity also being something which isn't "settled". wasn't that the subject?
second waves then being brought up from previous pandemics. i hope they're not settled, too? or at least not as far along as gravity.

all of this stuff, again at least to me, is instructional and to inform decisions and opinions and predictive thought on where we may be going.

If you are referring to my reference to second waves, it was simply a rebuttal to the notion that pandemics typically just burn out after an initial burst. Just not factually correct.

Now, as to why that is, there may be conflicting theories, but we do need to base any such in observed reality, not wishful thinking.

There are number of open questions about immunity, as well as "herd immunity", and this particular virus.

Not that there isn't substantial evidence already that enables the scientists to rule some theories in or out of contention, but there's still unknown aspects, indeed that will not be known fully until viewed retrospectively.

I'm not a scientist! But I do work with many.
Like some on here, I'm interested enough to have spent some energy on trying to understand what is understood by the scientists in this field so far. My own awareness of the risks of this virus as very significant preceded many, simply because of a head start courtesy of my son's insights from Asia. And, unfortunately, that's meant my own predictions of what would be happening, given government and societal responses here over time, have been borne out.

On immunity and herd immunity, there are a number of factors that certainly deserve consideration.

At present, we don't know for a certainty how long a person who develops some level of immunity retains such immunity, nor why that may vary.

- There appears to be some evidence that immunity is not persistent over a long term, at least for some, but not enough data yet to be certain.

We also don't know yet whether any of our population already had some level of immunity (or resistance) to the virus.

- This is possible, but has not been demonstrated in any sort of study...we do see varying reactions to the virus, but we see both symptomatic and asymptomatic spread from carriers.

Likewise, we're not sure what % of the population has already been infected and has built some level of immunity.

- We certainly know that more people have been infected than have tested positive (6+ million in US), but we don't know for sure what multiple. Best estimates, though, is that we haven't reached 20% nationally, much less the 60-70% that theoretically creates sufficient 'herd immunity' that the virus has tremendous difficulty finding new hosts.

We don't know yet whether any of the vaccines enable us to generate substantial immunity, nor whether such will be persistent (just as we don't know if immunity from an infection is persistent).

- We're hearing that the earliest candidates will have relatively low levels of immunity generation, but hopefully to be sufficient to be worthwhile, and will likely require multiple doses. Conversely, later candidates have been theorized as perhaps being more effective and being single dose...but again, we won't know about persistent immunity without more time.

We also don't and won't know the long term risks of any particular vaccine (nor the long term impacts of an actual infection survived) without the benefit of time.

- We will likely take the risk of long term negative impacts of vaccines versus the risks of virus infection, but as this will likely be a voluntary process in the US, there's a good chance a large % of the population will opt out of being vaccinated, relying on their neighbor to do so rather than themselves...

Other factors?

but what ya said was that it "seemed like the virus was running its course, like other viruses do". not that they "just burn out after an initial burst".

he can clarify, but he provided a link that might partially run on a theory related to some of what the nyt published several weeks ago (and other outlets have recently). i never saw the article previously, but it puts out a number of the possibles pos and neg in layman's terms.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/06/heal ... cells.html

again, he can clarify what he meant, and certainly not all pandemics have petered in the same way. not just for waves, but measures taken, transmissibility matters, a lot of things do. of course!

there are in fact a number of studies that have been done on the action of t cells and cross reactive. as the article notes some of. nothing near complete. i'd suggest someone ambitious could hire all the contract tracers to get a lot of numbers together and have confirmed/exposed/not "infected" lined up to measure how it is that some "got it" and some didn't. we'll continue to see more science work being done on this to help see what the "observed reality" is.

i could copy and paste the article for anyone that wants to see it and can't open it, but looks long.

There was a back and forth about 'herd immunity' and youth had just linked to a tweet on Ethical Skeptic supporting that notion...he then said we'd flattened the curve and the virus was running its course...certainly implying this flattening was due to herd immunity.

If that's not what he meant, of course he's free to correct that impression.

It's just not an accurate read of where we are, nor the likely progression of the virus. And the policy approach that 'herd immunity' (without doing so through a vaccine) is inevitable, so the sooner the better, is hugely wrong.

and yet there are those who are pushing that approach.

[wgdsr]

as you say, you (and i, and most here) are not a scientist.

i predict we'll keep morphing to wherever the science goes.

[youthathletics]

as you say, you (and i, and most here) are not a scientist.

i predict we'll keep morphing to wherever the science goes.

It's best to wait for MD to tell us all what to do.

[MDlaxfan76]

as you say, you (and i, and most here) are not a scientist.

i predict we'll keep morphing to wherever the science goes.

+1 on that...

[Typical Lax Dad]

as you say, you (and i, and most here) are not a scientist.

i predict we'll keep morphing to wherever the science goes.

Neither is this dude.....sounds like one of my college teammates that skipped town owing everyone money.

Who is The Ethical Skeptic?

The context of the moniker I use or the general practitioner descriptive in the form ‘ethical skeptic’, are set in the impersonal; as in the case of The American Practical Navigator or The Creative Architect for instance. Ethics discipline and virtue signaling are two differing things. Ethics are a generic call back to a standard and stakeholder-beneficial praxis, while virtue is an individual claim to exceed someone else’s standard. Appealing to organized bank robbers to cease robbing banks, is not a form of virtue signaling. Such appeal is a right we have and a duty we hold.

In this same regard, the context of ethics employed in this blog is deontological in as far as the adherence to standards of protocol, such as the real and complete scientific method, are regarded as both sufficient and necessary to direct our knowledge development actions. An idempotent neutral practice, characterized by an aversion to tampering with observations and data in favor of one’s agency. Yet, still consequentialist from the perspective that the outcomes of value, clarity and the alleviation of risk and suffering manifest as the signature handiwork of those who practice such ethics. In my profession and research skepticism is the substrate of science, and I feel it is abused when applied in lieu of science by agenda-schooled journalists, stage magicians, propaganda bloggers, psychologists and party/social activists. The bank robbers.

Just to clarify my positions, I am not a 9/11 truther, flat-Earther nor Moon landing ‘skeptic’. These critical thinking clubs all resulted ironically from media celebrities teaching weaponized skepticism in the first place. I am an evolutionist and an ignostic atheist. I side with science inside the matters of climate change, speciation and the origins of the universe as we understand them. I am pro-transgenetic technology and pro-vaccine – I have recommended specific vaccine programs as a critical step in some of my national health strategies for developing nations. I have campaigned hard, and met face to face with the heads of state, in order to promote acceptance of GMO agricultural foods from our country into several G8 nations which refuse them. But this does not mean that I am therefore now bound to gullibly accept excessive and untested immune activation in infants or every single gene splice desired by corporations benefiting from cosmetics, monopoly or convenience. Especially if we decide that diligent science and safety study are unnecessary because such caution serves to impede our virtuous and expedient profit. I have witnessed first hand the damaging impact by those who employ the permissive identities of virtue and science to enact all manner of greed, harm and malevolent decisions on all our behalf. Science is not a license for a few oligarch-socialism seekers to do whatever they want to the public. Inside a free nation, science must ever operate inside the public trust. Moreover, this applies to skepticism as well. I am a person who employs true skepticism, and refuses to adopt the mandatory religion, politics and economic views which characterize the 768 specific conclusions of surety, foisted as settled science on the part of Social Skepticism. I am a forthright critic of this pseudoscientific, malevolent and power hungry movement.

The promotion of self is pivotal inside any public false claim to represent science. I am not here to participate in such an obsession. For reasons which serve proposing a genuine problem in philosophy therefore, you will find that within this blog I remain primarily focused upon ideas, and not necessarily on the more alluring but distracting milieu around events, popular controversies or persons. That set of distracting personages includes myself; hence my choice of anonymity. Standing inside the protection of the mob and holding a whip of social excoriation is never an act of courage, rather an act of cowardice and self aggrandizement. Such is the habit of the celebrity-seeking skeptic. Moreover, while I rely heavily upon the excellent work inside the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://plato.stanford.edu/) as well as foundational philosophers such as Wittgenstein and Popper, along with modern documentarians Rosen, Nozick and Reese; nonetheless the super-majority of the thoughts presented herein are original thoughts and works of my own. They seek to place risk in epistemological conjecture; to challenge the status quo. These constructs constitute ideas derived over three decades of hard-earned and deep philosophy-altering global life exposure. A life framed in courage. You will find that I assemble these foundational principles and life experiences, then move a step further by leveraging or developing them into maturity with regard to understanding errant versus valid skepticism.

Constituting more than simply armchair weltanschauung, Ethical Skepticism is something I have learned though this arduous and world-exposed professional experience base. I am an observer of the methodology of corruption, tracing and documenting its subtle habits even if I happen to agree in many instances with the conclusions of those who practice it. Errant methodology will always legitimize itself through a public display of stooge dismantling or virtue signaling, but will always eventually produce desired surreptitiously errant outcomes. These errant outcomes then further directly relate to ignorance, stagnation and suffering – in that order. This is a law of social dynamic I have observed in many of my client nations. It is this same-styled methodology of rules gaming and junta mentality which suppresses many nations as de facto colonies, starving and sick. In the same way, the corrupted methods of Social Skepticism relegate its victims (all of us) to a purposeful state of ignorance on many subjects. A poverty of intelligence awash in a sea of correctness, seeking to maroon any idea which could even remotely threaten the awesome cosmology, hatred and politics of their insistence.

Who is The Ethical Skeptic? No one of consequence. I work professionally in engineering and science on a daily basis; however I do not claim to be a scientist myself. Rather, I am a graduate degree science and engineering professional, alumnus of the top ranked science and engineering school of its kind in the Nation, and am further then regarded by that prestigious University as one of its top graduates. I built and headed a nationally ranked advisory company from its inception, leading development of my teams’ unprecedented methods and applications which now function as standard practice in a couple industry verticals.

Strategies I have directed for my clients have backed the most successful category killer brands on the planet and ascertained direction for some of our largest nations on the globe. They have been touted as the smartest moves in decades by several large and familiar corporations. One multi-year brand and market strategy/campaign I directed in particular, was awarded one of the highest global awards achievable for such work. Strategies I have directed for nation-clients have focused on critical famine, disease, resource and medical infrastructure for over 15 nations. Aside from critical national events requiring my particular set of skills, I have retired from this work and now acquire and run companies focused on mercy, global trade and energy.

In younger days I was privileged to have served as a top ranked Naval Officer – highly sought for the most premium deployed operational theater, Washington D.C. and flag-level support billets in the United States Navy. I have served as a Director level, Black Intelligence Officer. I am professionally trained in the ability to prosecute a solution and recognize agency inside asymmetry. I have headed a classified research lab which developed groundbreaking scientific discovery on behalf of very grateful stakeholders. I have traveled the globe extensively for decades, holding 4 million frequent flier miles. I’ve been shot at, sequestered by violent regimes, met with opposing empire intelligence agents, nearly been knifed, performed surveillance on pirate businesses and been held at at gunpoint by mercenaries and juntas. I can spot a poseur from a mile away. My skills set includes observing and elucidating the habits of those who practice corruption and agency as a matter of social protocol.

Finally, I both chair and fund an endowment at my alma mater for financially disadvantaged students, as well as advise its post graduate schools on what industry needs most from new graduates. I was selected to tour a U.S. President and First Lady around our University campus. I have advised several G8 world leaders, several US Senators, and 4 other heads of state globally in my respective professions.

Do not allow a fake skeptic to instruct you that this type of impact is not attainable inside one lifetime. It is exactly such lazy, self-centered cynicism which hinders their accomplishing similar; failing to understand that critiquing skills come at a dime a dozen and obtaining a professional category title, sitting around running integral functions or writing a book do not constitute pinnacles of life achievement.

Certainly not an expert on everything, you will find few people on this planet who have touched as many disciplines, worked as hard, seen or accomplished as much, nor observed as many paradigm shattering things inside a life. It is not that smart people believe weird things, but rather what I observe among scientists of the highest caliber acumen: they are wise in their application of intellectual integrity. At some point inside a doctrinal array of conclusive arguments, the ethical mind must eventually broach dissent, and question the nature of linear thinking certainty inside asymmetric, partially understood systems. Mindlessly falling prey to a bandwagon effect does not qualify one as rational nor as a critical thinker. You cannot justify the corruption of mind with a series of memorized one-liners. As my favorite professor in Standard Model particle physics used to say, “It is not simply the correctness of your answer I want you to express, rather demonstrate the rigor and quality of your thinking.” The rigor and quality of our thinking has been sacrificed at the alter of authorized correctness masquerading as science.

Never use skepticism as an excuse to dissuade anyone’s life from expressing its full extraordinary potential, especially your own.

[MDlaxfan76]

as you say, you (and i, and most here) are not a scientist.

i predict we'll keep morphing to wherever the science goes.

It's best to wait for MD to tell us all what to do.

nah, just listen to those who actually ARE credible scientists in these fields.

We gather here and share, back and forth, various news and ideas, with varying levels of credibility...that's helpful, at least to me, because I often hear new info that I then can dig deeper into.

I just get annoyed when those who have some sort of partisan motive or are just cranks spread crappola that is actually dangerous.

I don't get the sense you are either such, youth.

[Peter Brown]

Apparently, TLD isn’t fond of independent thinking, buttressed by military work as well as charity.


TLD is a supporter of California Assembly Bill SB145. Hmmmm.

[RedFromMI]

Apparently, TLD isn’t fond of independent thinking, buttressed by military work as well as charity.


TLD is a supporter of California Assembly Bill SB145. Hmmmm.

From https://www.eqca.org/release-senate-passes-sb-145/

Just so you know what is in the law:

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Today, Senator Scott Wiener’s (D-San Francisco) Senate Bill 145, which ends blatant discrimination against LGBTQ youth regarding California’s sex offender registry, passed the Senate on a 24-2 vote. It now heads to the Assembly for committee hearings in the coming weeks. SB 145 is co-sponsored by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office and Equality California, and is supported by both law enforcement and civil rights advocates including the California Public Defenders Association, the California Police Chiefs Association, the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault and Lambda Legal.

Currently, for consensual yet illegal sexual relations between a teenager age 14 to 17 and a partner within 10 years of age, “sexual intercourse” (i.e., vaginal intercourse) does not mandate that the offender to go onto the sex offender registry; rather, the judge has discretion to decide, based on the facts of the case, whether sex offender registration is warranted or unwarranted. By contrast, for all other forms of intercourse — specifically, oral and anal intercourse — sex offender registration is mandated under all situations, with no judicial discretion.

This distinction in the law — which is irrational, at best, as it treats oral and anal sex as somehow worse than penile-vaginal sex — disproportionately targets LGBTQ young people by mandating sex offender registration for forms of intercourse in which they engage. For example, if an 18-year-old straight man has penile-vaginal intercourse with his 17-year-old girlfriend, he is guilty of a crime, but he is not automatically required to register as a sex offender; instead, the judge will decide based on the facts of the case whether registration is warranted. By contrast, if an 18 year old gay man has sex with his 17 year old boyfriend, then the judge *must* place him on the sex offender registry, no matter what the circumstances.

“California shouldn’t be discriminating against LGBTQ young people, particularly when that discrimination force these kids onto the sex offender registry,” said Senator Wiener. “This irrational discrimination on the sex offender registry was created when California banned LGBT sex. This distinction between vaginal intercourse and other forms of intercourse is a relic of California’s discriminatory past, and it’s time to bring an end to it. SB 145 brings parity to the sex offender registry so we are treating all young people the same. Going on the sex-offender registry can ruin a young person’s life, making it harder for them to find a job and housing. We need to put an end to this terrible discrimination.”

“There’s no reason for California law to treat young people differently because of their sexual orientation or gender identity,” said Equality California Executive Director Rick Zbur. “For years, we’ve been working with Senator Wiener to strengthen our Sex Offender Registry and improve public safety by eliminating discrimination in California’s Criminal Code. We’re grateful to the senators who supported this bipartisan, common-sense fix today and look forward to the day when LGBTQ young people are treated equally under the law.”

SB 145 does not legalize any kind of sex with a minor and does not change the potential sentence for having sex with an underage person. Rather, the bill simply gives judges the ability to evaluate whether or not to require registration as a sex offender. To be clear, this judicial discretion for sex offender registration is *already* the law for penile-vaginal intercourse when the minor is aged between 14 to 17 years old and the offender is within 10 years of age of the minor. SB 145 simply extends that same discretion to other forms of intercourse. A judge will maintain the authority to place someone on the registry if the behavior at issue was predatory or otherwise egregious. This change will treat straight and LGBTQ youth equally, end the discrimination against LGBTQ people, and ensure that California stops stigmatizing specific sexual acts.

“We applaud the passage of SB 145, which provides better guidance for judges when determining whether someone is placed on the sex offender registry,” said Los Angeles County District Attorney Jackie Lacey. “This bill treats everyone fairly under the law while still prioritizing public safety by ensuring that the most serious offenders are placed on the registry.”

(SB 145 does not apply to intercourse of any kind with minors who are younger than 14. For those crimes, mandatory sex offender registration will continue to be the case for all forms of intercourse.)

Until recently, the California Supreme Court (People v. Hofsheier) and the Appellate Courts had held that requiring mandatory lifetime registration for sodomy, oral copulation, and sexual penetration, but not penile-vaginal sexual intercourse, violated the equal protection clause, and was unconstitutional. However, in a more recent case, Johnson v. Department of Justice, the California Supreme Court overturned the Hofsheier case, reasoning that since sexual intercourse can cause pregnancy and other sex acts cannot, it is not discriminatory to treat the offenses differently and for harsher penalties to be in place for non-vaginal intercourse.

SB 145 will overturn the Johnson decision and end this blatant discrimination.

[wgdsr]

as you say, you (and i, and most here) are not a scientist.

i predict we'll keep morphing to wherever the science goes.

Neither is this dude.....sounds like one of my college teammates that skipped town owing everyone money.

Who is The Ethical Skeptic?

The context of the moniker I use or the general practitioner descriptive in the form ‘ethical skeptic’, are set in the impersonal; as in the case of The

been to his/her twitter feed a couple times in the last number of months. just went again. pretty big on conspiracy theories, he does seem to dig into a lot of data that he likes and forms it.

just went again and down the list a bit he's talking about something that i think our universities and their comings and goings with test result might provide a real look at if there's anything to it: essentially the sensitivity of tests. i doubt the way these universities are running things that we'll actually pull any real time data out of it, but we could...
that is, kids are being tested multiple times. some of these kids had it and had it confirmed months ago. those that happened to may not be infectious now, but rna traces are still in the body and a highly sensitive test could be running back positive. the opposite could also occur... hundreds of kids first test negative, then get together for parties/exposure and then come up positive and show that there's a bunch of infection that's still to come. that's the general gist, but the sensitivity of tests now vs then (months ago) is important. or could be. has it changed? i don't know.

that sensitivity also goes to the "zombie population" i spoke about a bit ago. you've never gotten the flu? are you sure? or did you maybe get the flu virus into your body, and your immune system eradicated it after 2000 replications and before the 20,000 replications it takes to get symptoms/be measured as a flu (i made those 2 numbers up)? that's what i've spoke about re: zombies. they don't have a force field that doesn't let the virus in their body, they've just possibly got an immune system that thru t cells or cross reactive response crushed it quickly and with only minimal evidence. higher sensitive tests (greater amplification cycling of rna) may bear that out, and if they're in play now (i don't know that they are), it'll result in mapping those out. and will also result in more cases, in some cases in the non-infectious if you want to believe the conspiracy part.

several of the problems we are wrestling with are that (of course) this virus has become very political, and that information charitably is going to be inexact bc we are on the fly, and as you say it is novel.

[steel_hop]

anyone under the age of 60 getting COVID is no more impactful in someone's odds of dying or getting a longterm illness than walking outside the door and interacting with other people.

This simply is not true.

Sure it is. You've just been sucked up into the vortex of the media trying to scare you.

Here is the odds of you dying from just about anything.

http://www.bandolier.org.uk/booth/Risk/dyingage.html

Here are the odds for someone that contracts COVID from confirmed cases. Confirmed cases are not the true death rate because millions of people have been infected but are not confirmed - in some reports the infected number is 10 times the confirmed number. But, we can go by the confirmed rate.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavir ... ographics/

Hunh, they are about the same. Who would have thought.

[Typical Lax Dad]

as you say, you (and i, and most here) are not a scientist.

i predict we'll keep morphing to wherever the science goes.

Neither is this dude.....sounds like one of my college teammates that skipped town owing everyone money.

Who is The Ethical Skeptic?

The context of the moniker I use or the general practitioner descriptive in the form ‘ethical skeptic’, are set in the impersonal; as in the case of The

been to his/her twitter feed a couple times in the last number of months. just went again. pretty big on conspiracy theories, he does seem to dig into a lot of data that he likes and forms it.

just went again and down the list a bit he's talking about something that i think our universities and their comings and goings with test result might provide a real look at if there's anything to it: essentially the sensitivity of tests. i doubt the way these universities are running things that we'll actually pull any real time data out of it, but we could...
that is, kids are being tested multiple times. some of these kids had it and had it confirmed months ago. those that happened to may not be infectious now, but rna traces are still in the body and a highly sensitive test could be running back positive. the opposite could also occur... hundreds of kids first test negative, then get together for parties/exposure and then come up positive and show that there's a bunch of infection that's still to come. that's the general gist, but the sensitivity of tests now vs then (months ago) is important. or could be. has it changed? i don't know.

that sensitivity also goes to the "zombie population" i spoke about a bit ago. you've never gotten the flu? are you sure? or did you maybe get the flu virus into your body, and your immune system eradicated it after 2000 replications and before the 20,000 replications it takes to get symptoms/be measured as a flu (i made those 2 numbers up)? that's what i've spoke about re: zombies. they don't have a force field that doesn't let the virus in their body, they've just possibly got an immune system that thru t cells or cross reactive response crushed it quickly and with only minimal evidence. higher sensitive tests (greater amplification cycling of rna) may bear that out, and if they're in play now (i don't know that they are), it'll result in mapping those out. and will also result in more cases, in some cases in the non-infectious if you want to believe the conspiracy part.

several of the problems we are wrestling with are that (of course) this virus has become very political, and that information charitably is going to be inexact bc we are on the fly, and as you say it is novel.

How about "I have never been sick with the flu or received a flu diagnosis". Never tested positive for syphilis either

[steel_hop]

As an anecdotal, and I am not a scientist, Dr., etc. In 1998, I was a USMCR with Weapons Company 25th Marines after 5.5 yrs in the tip of the spear with 1st Bn., 6th Marines 2MARDIV. Back then as a general rule, I never went to the doctor (my old sawbones dad was good enough). In the summer between my IL and 2L years at law school, I had the most ridiculous case of something (maybe narcolepsy (if that is a thing)). No energy, just wanted to nap, which I did all the time. It was brutal. I worried that I had Lyme, AIDs (had been to Olongapo City in 88), Cancer, Malaria, I literally just wanted to lay in bed and sleep forever. It lasted for a month or two. No f'n clue what was the cause (29 Palms water maybe), but I had something. Was really worried about my prospects for 2L. But I got over that just as fall semester started and I was good to go. Who the f' knows. All these Covid novel theories about permanent impacts on health, like Doc B sprouts, he has no clue.

Unknown,

This is a great post, thanks for the personal insight. These theories about permanent impacts on health, are just theories for now. It's the hyperfocus on this virus from the MSM that has unfortunately changed the way certain people accept the information that is disseminated.

Go Twins!
JoeMauer89!

The dangerous, ignorant misinformation here really needs to stop.

COVID-19 can permanently injure the lungs in some patients.

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/ ... -the-lungs

Other COVID-19 patients have experienced cardiovascular complications like stroke.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/N ... 1599044905

Of course, there is nothing more permanent than death, and nearly 190,000 have died from COVID-19.

You two should be banned for your dangerously ignorant and misinformed posts. I know the Administrator is reluctant to do that, but a warning should at least be in order here.

There is nothing more dangerous than misinformation in a pandemic.

DocBarrister

Your last sentence almost reads like comedy because it ignores that fact that many viral/resipiratory diseases do the same thing as COVID. When you start posting about the long term consequences of those outbreaks then I'll be concerned that you are actually working in the same realm of reality as many of everyone else.

Of course, you still think DP still deserved to be coaching at Hopkins so that tells me alot about where you stand in the realm of reality.

The 862,700+ dead people around the world and their loved ones will dispute your absurd assertion that COVID-19 is like other viral and respiratory illnesses. That death total is on its way to a million, even with the most extreme global mitigation effort in over a century.

You show little respect for the dead and the mass global suffering inflicted by SARS-CoV-2.

DocBarrister

8000 Americans die every day. Approximately 157,000 people die every day in the world. Your point is mute about loved ones. I show a great deal of respect for the dead because I'm not posting fearmongering nonsense nor do I want to place any more restrictions on people's lives than should be necessary. Much of the suffering has been induced by actions of the government (supported by cheerleaders like yourself) because they have no context in how to think longer than today. Not thinking about what the unintended consequences has generated far more suffering than what the virus will ever do.

[wgdsr]

as you say, you (and i, and most here) are not a scientist.

i predict we'll keep morphing to wherever the science goes.

Neither is this dude.....sounds like one of my college teammates that skipped town owing everyone money.

Who is The Ethical Skeptic?

The context of the moniker I use or the general practitioner descriptive in the form ‘ethical skeptic’, are set in the impersonal; as in the case of The

been to his/her twitter feed a couple times in the last number of months. just went again. pretty big on conspiracy theories, he does seem to dig into a lot of data that he likes and forms it.

just went again and down the list a bit he's talking about something that i think our universities and their comings and goings with test result might provide a real look at if there's anything to it: essentially the sensitivity of tests. i doubt the way these universities are running things that we'll actually pull any real time data out of it, but we could...
that is, kids are being tested multiple times. some of these kids had it and had it confirmed months ago. those that happened to may not be infectious now, but rna traces are still in the body and a highly sensitive test could be running back positive. the opposite could also occur... hundreds of kids first test negative, then get together for parties/exposure and then come up positive and show that there's a bunch of infection that's still to come. that's the general gist, but the sensitivity of tests now vs then (months ago) is important. or could be. has it changed? i don't know.

that sensitivity also goes to the "zombie population" i spoke about a bit ago. you've never gotten the flu? are you sure? or did you maybe get the flu virus into your body, and your immune system eradicated it after 2000 replications and before the 20,000 replications it takes to get symptoms/be measured as a flu (i made those 2 numbers up)? that's what i've spoke about re: zombies. they don't have a force field that doesn't let the virus in their body, they've just possibly got an immune system that thru t cells or cross reactive response crushed it quickly and with only minimal evidence. higher sensitive tests (greater amplification cycling of rna) may bear that out, and if they're in play now (i don't know that they are), it'll result in mapping those out. and will also result in more cases, in some cases in the non-infectious if you want to believe the conspiracy part.

several of the problems we are wrestling with are that (of course) this virus has become very political, and that information charitably is going to be inexact bc we are on the fly, and as you say it is novel.

How about "I have never been sick with the flu or received a flu diagnosis". Never tested positive for syphilis either

i don't remember having the flu in the last 20-30 years, either. maybe gotten the flu shot twice.
hopefully this means we're in better shape if covid shows up on our doorstep. or maybe it means the opposite.
vitamin d. take it. whaddaya got to lose? or go outside.

[Typical Lax Dad]

as you say, you (and i, and most here) are not a scientist.

i predict we'll keep morphing to wherever the science goes.

Neither is this dude.....sounds like one of my college teammates that skipped town owing everyone money.

Who is The Ethical Skeptic?

The context of the moniker I use or the general practitioner descriptive in the form ‘ethical skeptic’, are set in the impersonal; as in the case of The

been to his/her twitter feed a couple times in the last number of months. just went again. pretty big on conspiracy theories, he does seem to dig into a lot of data that he likes and forms it.

just went again and down the list a bit he's talking about something that i think our universities and their comings and goings with test result might provide a real look at if there's anything to it: essentially the sensitivity of tests. i doubt the way these universities are running things that we'll actually pull any real time data out of it, but we could...
that is, kids are being tested multiple times. some of these kids had it and had it confirmed months ago. those that happened to may not be infectious now, but rna traces are still in the body and a highly sensitive test could be running back positive. the opposite could also occur... hundreds of kids first test negative, then get together for parties/exposure and then come up positive and show that there's a bunch of infection that's still to come. that's the general gist, but the sensitivity of tests now vs then (months ago) is important. or could be. has it changed? i don't know.

that sensitivity also goes to the "zombie population" i spoke about a bit ago. you've never gotten the flu? are you sure? or did you maybe get the flu virus into your body, and your immune system eradicated it after 2000 replications and before the 20,000 replications it takes to get symptoms/be measured as a flu (i made those 2 numbers up)? that's what i've spoke about re: zombies. they don't have a force field that doesn't let the virus in their body, they've just possibly got an immune system that thru t cells or cross reactive response crushed it quickly and with only minimal evidence. higher sensitive tests (greater amplification cycling of rna) may bear that out, and if they're in play now (i don't know that they are), it'll result in mapping those out. and will also result in more cases, in some cases in the non-infectious if you want to believe the conspiracy part.

several of the problems we are wrestling with are that (of course) this virus has become very political, and that information charitably is going to be inexact bc we are on the fly, and as you say it is novel.

How about "I have never been sick with the flu or received a flu diagnosis". Never tested positive for syphilis either

i don't remember having the flu in the last 20-30 years, either. maybe gotten the flu shot twice.
hopefully this means we're in better shape if covid shows up on our doorstep. or maybe it means the opposite.
vitamin d. take it. whaddaya got to lose? or go outside.

I thought you would laugh at my syphilis joke! I have been taking Vitamin D for a year.

[Peter Brown]

as you say, you (and i, and most here) are not a scientist.

i predict we'll keep morphing to wherever the science goes.

It's best to wait for MD to tell us all what to do.

nah, just listen to those who actually ARE credible scientists in these fields.

We gather here and share, back and forth, various news and ideas, with varying levels of credibility...that's helpful, at least to me, because I often hear new info that I then can dig deeper into.

I just get annoyed when those who have some sort of partisan motive or are just cranks spread crappola that is actually dangerous.

I don't get the sense you are either such, youth.

I got my hopes up!!!!!

We gather here and share, back and forth, various news and ideas, with varying levels of credibility...that's helpful, at least to me, because I often hear new info that I then can dig deeper into.

Then he plunged the daggar...I know who he's talking 'bout!

I just get annoyed when those who have some sort of partisan motive or are just cranks spread crappola that is actually dangerous.

[wgdsr]

How about "I have never been sick with the flu or received a flu diagnosis". Never tested positive for syphilis either

i don't remember having the flu in the last 20-30 years, either. maybe gotten the flu shot twice.
hopefully this means we're in better shape if covid shows up on our doorstep. or maybe it means the opposite.
vitamin d. take it. whaddaya got to lose? or go outside.

I thought you would laugh at my syphilis joke! I have been taking Vitamin D for a year.

i chuckled.
but you should still get tested.

[Typical Lax Dad]

How about "I have never been sick with the flu or received a flu diagnosis". Never tested positive for syphilis either

i don't remember having the flu in the last 20-30 years, either. maybe gotten the flu shot twice.
hopefully this means we're in better shape if covid shows up on our doorstep. or maybe it means the opposite.
vitamin d. take it. whaddaya got to lose? or go outside.

I thought you would laugh at my syphilis joke! I have been taking Vitamin D for a year.

i chuckled.
but you should still get tested.

Might explain my blindness

[wgdsr]

How about "I have never been sick with the flu or received a flu diagnosis". Never tested positive for syphilis either

i don't remember having the flu in the last 20-30 years, either. maybe gotten the flu shot twice.
hopefully this means we're in better shape if covid shows up on our doorstep. or maybe it means the opposite.
vitamin d. take it. whaddaya got to lose? or go outside.

I thought you would laugh at my syphilis joke! I have been taking Vitamin D for a year.

i chuckled.
but you should still get tested.

Might explain my blindness

i know wcloa is looking for refs.