LaxPower Back-Up Stick

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 12:59 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 12:38 pm

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 12:29 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 12:01 pm

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 11:14 am

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 11:09 am

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 10:37 am

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 10:35 am

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 10:26 am

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 10:22 am

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 10:08 am

Bart wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 9:59 am

RedFromMI wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 9:37 am

Bart wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 8:32 am

RedFromMI wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:38 pm Maybe someone should explain to PB that to get to herd immunity in Florida would mean upping the infection rates big time...

They are NOWHERE close to herd immunity (60% to 80% necessary). They are not close to passing New York, which might be at 25% or so now...

You are assuming there is no cross reactivity in Memory T cells from previous corona virus infections. A assumption that is currently being challenged with data that suggests otherwise.

But that is not going to lower "herd immunity" to well under 20%...

Nowhere close.

You you may be right. But it may lower it well below the 60-80% threshold everyone throw's around as a 100% done deal. You do not know, neither do I for that matter.

+1

It’s not 20%.

It's "not", or you don't want it to be?

Want has nothing to do with science.

Sounds like you have deep qualifications as both an epidemiologist and statistician and we need to listen.

Please educate!

Sounds like you don’t.

Well that lesson was short!

Maybe you don't. Oh well.

Best to keep it that way with you. “Know your audience”.

I’d say ‘know your limitations’ is more apt.

Yes. Know your audience’s limitations. Enjoy your Sunday.

Well that’s grossly pedantic...simply assuming your audience has limitations and even if they were eager to learn, they ‘can’t’. Fitting elitism for a Democrat.

I am not a Democrat but may be elite. Definitely uppity.

TLD - you nailed on the head!

That is why the Trumpists have such a problematic relationship with science - it fails to agree with their sense of reality, warped as it is!

That is also why Stephen Colbert said:

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

PB with a bit more nonsense...cannot resist whatever stupid meme he can come up with from his echo chamber.

Case fatality rate for the US is about 3%.

People for the most part behaving responsibly have kept the exposed fraction of the population to just a few percent in the US.

But still maybe 250K deaths when accounting for excess deaths. Official count now over 200K. And a great argument that the policies of the current R administration responsible for a pretty large fraction of that...

He is trying to get us to ignore that.

RedFromMI wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 12:42 pm

Herd immunity is a fantasy

Opinion by William Haseltine

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/18/opinions ... index.html

William Haseltine, PhD, is chair and president of the global health think tank, ACCESS Health International. He is author of numerous books, including the recently released, "A Family Guide to Covid: Questions and Answers for Parents, Grandparents and Children." The views expressed in this commentary are his own.

Certainly is one persons opinion. He may be right. There are others who might disagree.

Interesting in that the initial study they set the Cycle threshold at 35. Many people would call that backgound. In the data they use to support a larger viral load in the second infection rather than the first the Ct appears to be 28 with much of the cluster near or above 30. The inter quatile data is certainly more compact in the first infection rather than the second. But the non paired T test gets a p less than 05.

Also from the paper...."The observation that infection enhancement can occur after prior exposure to the virus, with strongest enhancement occurring >80 days after initial exposure (Figure 4C), is consistent with an immune response playing a role. The majority of the repeat infections showed a pattern of reduced virus replication after prior exposure, which is consistent with the vaccine principle. Also there are likely to be cases of repeat exposure to the virus where the second infection is blocked and these, of course, would not be detected in our study. "

The question that was not answered in the paper, the one that may be more important...was the clinical outcome different or better the first and second round?

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 10:25 am

Bart wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 10:08 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 9:55 am

Bart wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 8:32 am

RedFromMI wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:38 pm Maybe someone should explain to PB that to get to herd immunity in Florida would mean upping the infection rates big time...

They are NOWHERE close to herd immunity (60% to 80% necessary). They are not close to passing New York, which might be at 25% or so now...

You are assuming there is no cross reactivity in Memory T cells from previous corona virus infections. A assumption that is currently being challenged with data that suggests otherwise.

I must have missed this explanation, would you explain it again.

Are you saying that there have been prior corona virus infections (pre-COVID-19) in some of our population that provides them with immunity from this one, from being a spreader to others?

Evidence of such ?

Yes.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32473127/

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... f_ipsecsha (preprint)

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577- ... -z----this is an interesting read

Remember, "immunity" may not keep a person from absolutely not getting the virus. It may men a systemic response that does not lead to really adverse effects.

Right, perhaps lower response...but this doesn't mean they are not infected and spreading to others, which is what is necessary for 'herd immunity' to slow transmission rates to then burn out.

But would perhaps explain why some who are infected have minimal impact upon them. Maybe.

But that's not a herd immunity factor, right?

Unless we're also saying that those with low reactions to the virus don't spread (or spread much less)...and we know that asymptomatics do spread...

Bart (not PB), have you answered this layman's question?
I see you questioning Haseltine's conclusion with a rather esoteric response, and my own question is admittedly more simplistic and less precise, but this does seem the logical issue, correct?

If there's some lesser response in some of those infected, based on a prior exposure to a similar, though far less deadly, virus, this may or may not also mean that such a person is less infectious as well.

The issue would be, if any less infectious (we do know that asymptomatic patients are nevertheless spreaders), how much less?

Herd immunity depends (again from a lay perspective) on the virus not finding and then spreading from new patients to new patients, and ultimately doing so at so low a rate that the virus starves from no new jumping off points during the period in which an infected person is actually infectious.

But not causing rough symptoms doesn't appear to mean that such an infected, asymptomatic person does not nevertheless spread to more people, until ultimately there is a patient who responds very poorly...so, a conclusion that someone who has an immune response that keeps them having a bad outcome themselves does not mean, necessarily, that they aren't nevertheless capable of spreading it to those more vulnerable in outcomes...

Only when there's little new fodder for spread does the virus choke off.
Vaccines are all about choking it off...

But you undoubtedly know more than I do, thus my question.
(and a heck of a lot more than our troll).

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 4:36 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 10:25 am

Bart wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 10:08 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 9:55 am

Bart wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 8:32 am

RedFromMI wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:38 pm Maybe someone should explain to PB that to get to herd immunity in Florida would mean upping the infection rates big time...

They are NOWHERE close to herd immunity (60% to 80% necessary). They are not close to passing New York, which might be at 25% or so now...

You are assuming there is no cross reactivity in Memory T cells from previous corona virus infections. A assumption that is currently being challenged with data that suggests otherwise.

I must have missed this explanation, would you explain it again.

Are you saying that there have been prior corona virus infections (pre-COVID-19) in some of our population that provides them with immunity from this one, from being a spreader to others?

Evidence of such ?

Yes.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32473127/

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... f_ipsecsha (preprint)

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577- ... -z----this is an interesting read

Remember, "immunity" may not keep a person from absolutely not getting the virus. It may men a systemic response that does not lead to really adverse effects.

Right, perhaps lower response...but this doesn't mean they are not infected and spreading to others, which is what is necessary for 'herd immunity' to slow transmission rates to then burn out.

But would perhaps explain why some who are infected have minimal impact upon them. Maybe.

But that's not a herd immunity factor, right?

Unless we're also saying that those with low reactions to the virus don't spread (or spread much less)...and we know that asymptomatics do spread...

Bart (not PB), have you answered this layman's question?
I see you questioning Haseltine's conclusion with a rather esoteric response, and my own question is admittedly more simplistic and less precise, but this does seem the logical issue, correct?

It is a fair question.

If there's some lesser response in some of those infected, based on a prior exposure to a similar, though far less deadly, virus, this may or may not also mean that such a person is less infectious as well.

That would be my assumption

The issue would be, if any less infectious (we do know that asymptomatic patients are nevertheless spreaders), how much less?

Unknown. That is the million dollar question

Herd immunity depends (again from a lay perspective) on the virus not finding and then spreading from new patients to new patients, and ultimately doing so at so low a rate that the virus starves from no new jumping off points during the period in which an infected person is actually infectious.

But not causing rough symptoms doesn't appear to mean that such an infected, asymptomatic person does not nevertheless spread to more people, until ultimately there is a patient who responds very poorly...so, a conclusion that someone who has an immune response that keeps them having a bad outcome themselves does not mean, necessarily, that they aren't nevertheless capable of spreading it to those more vulnerable in outcomes...

Why not? It may depend on the size of the viral load determines the severity of the disease. If we have an immediate adaptive response (memory T cells) then the ability of the virus to take hold should be less and if there is less virus in then less virus out. Your point about spreading to vulnerable population may indeed happen, I do not know if we currently understand how much virus is needed to infect.

Only when there's little new fodder for spread does the virus choke off.
Vaccines are all about choking it off...

Certainly vaccines that confer sterile immunity do this.

But you undoubtedly know more than I do, thus my question.

I doubt that, I am relearning my immunology as we go through this entire thing. PCOWLAX gives a much more detailed explanation on the men's board on page 19 of the "is the seasons gonna happen" thread.
(and a heck of a lot more than our troll).

In questioning Hasletines conclusion it as much about asking the possibility of different outcomes rather than saying he is wrong. I really do not know and the data did not appear to be as black and white as he suggest (imo). I certainly hope he is wrong but the data will take this thing where it will.

RedFromMI wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 2:41 pm PB with a bit more nonsense...cannot resist whatever stupid meme he can come up with from his echo chamber.

Case fatality rate for the US is about 3%.

People for the most part behaving responsibly have kept the exposed fraction of the population to just a few percent in the US.

But still maybe 250K deaths when accounting for excess deaths. Official count now over 200K. And a great argument that the policies of the current R administration responsible for a pretty large fraction of that...

He is trying to get us to ignore that.

... actually, the US death per case closed (either death or recovery) is a rather high 5%. The world is closer to 3%.

Brooklyn wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 9:31 am 203,000+ Americans dead:


https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/



Thank you traitor tRUMP.

How many less dead if Hillaryous Clinton had visited Wisconsin?

Now, the CDC says 6 feet isn't enough distance.....a 15 miles per hour wind does NOT carry v-19 droplets

youthathletics wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 9:58 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 9:55 am

Bart wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 8:32 am

RedFromMI wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:38 pm Maybe someone should explain to PB that to get to herd immunity in Florida would mean upping the infection rates big time...

They are NOWHERE close to herd immunity (60% to 80% necessary). They are not close to passing New York, which might be at 25% or so now...

You are assuming there is no cross reactivity in Memory T cells from previous corona virus infections. A assumption that is currently being challenged with data that suggests otherwise.

I must have missed this explanation, would you explain it again.

Are you saying that there have been prior corona virus infections (pre-COVID-19) in some of our population that provides them with immunity from this one, from being a spreader to others?

Evidence of such ?

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-res ... .%E2%80%9D

story boy will NOT reply to this informative post.....just like he hasn't answered the Baltimore windshield washer question.

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 12:59 pm


I’d say ‘know your limitations’ is more apt.

Yes. Know your audience’s limitations. Enjoy your Sunday.

Well that’s grossly pedantic...simply assuming your audience has limitations and even if they were eager to learn, they ‘can’t’. Fitting elitism for a Democrat.[/quote]
[/quote]


TLD has become nothing more than a crow......brings nothing but vitriol.

jhu72 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 11:18 pm

RedFromMI wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 2:41 pm PB with a bit more nonsense...cannot resist whatever stupid meme he can come up with from his echo chamber.

Case fatality rate for the US is about 3%.

People for the most part behaving responsibly have kept the exposed fraction of the population to just a few percent in the US.

But still maybe 250K deaths when accounting for excess deaths. Official count now over 200K. And a great argument that the policies of the current R administration responsible for a pretty large fraction of that...

He is trying to get us to ignore that.

... actually, the US death per case closed (either death or recovery) is a rather high 5%. The world is closer to 3%.

who needs the Paris Climate accords.....the USA is reducing it's carbon footprint by all those mouth breathers dying. We have crossed referenced all the deaths from covid (allegaged).....AND.....we have found that 85% voted for TRUMP in 2016. That equates to about 170k dead that will NOT be voting for anyone (legally), especially TRUMP

Isn't this a good thing, pretend liberal? Almost all the dead are OLD trump voters. good thing.

Tin Men soundtrack.....such a great movie "....I dont know the guy"

Winter is coming:

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/arch ... ium=social

"It is now widely accepted among experts that the United States is primed for a surge in cases at a uniquely perilous moment in our national history. “As we approach the fall and winter months, it is important that we get the baseline level of daily infections much lower than they are right now,” Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told me by email. For the past few weeks, the country has been averaging about 40,000 new infections a day. Fauci said that “we must, over the next few weeks, get that baseline of infections down to 10,000 per day, or even much less if we want to maintain control of this outbreak.”

This may be the most salient warning he has issued at any point in the pandemic. Cutting an infection rate as high as ours by 75 percent in a matter of weeks would almost certainly require widespread lockdowns in which nearly everyone shelters in place, as happened in China in January. That will not happen in the United States. Donald Trump has been campaigning for reelection on just the opposite message. He has promised that normalcy and American greatness are just around the corner. He has touted dubious treatments and said at least 34 times that the virus will disappear. This disinformation is nearing a crescendo now that the election looms: Trump has been teasing a vaccine that could be available within weeks.

The cold reality is that we should plan for a winter in which vaccination is not part of our lives. Three vaccine candidates are currently in Phase 3 clinical trials in the U.S., and the trials’ results may arrive as early as November. But even if they do—and even if they look perfect—it would not mean that a vaccine would be widely available. On Wednesday, Redfield said in a congressional hearing that a vaccine was unlikely to be widely available until summer of next year, if not later. Fauci may be even less optimistic. He told my colleague Peter Nicholas that if the clinical trials go well, it could mean a few million doses could be available by early 2021. By the time we got to 50 million to 100 million doses, he estimated, “you’re going to be well into 2021.” If each person needs two doses, as many experts expect, that would be enough to vaccinate roughly 11 percent of the population.

The virus is here to stay. At best, it would fade away gradually, but that would happen after, not before, the winter. The sooner we can accept this, the more we can focus on minimizing the losses of the bleak and grisly coming months. Some of our fate is now inevitable, but much is not. There are still basic things we can do to survive."

seacoaster wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 7:49 am Winter is coming:

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/arch ... ium=social

"It is now widely accepted among experts that the United States is primed for a surge in cases at a uniquely perilous moment in our national history. “As we approach the fall and winter months, it is important that we get the baseline level of daily infections much lower than they are right now,” Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told me by email. For the past few weeks, the country has been averaging about 40,000 new infections a day. Fauci said that “we must, over the next few weeks, get that baseline of infections down to 10,000 per day, or even much less if we want to maintain control of this outbreak.”

This may be the most salient warning he has issued at any point in the pandemic. Cutting an infection rate as high as ours by 75 percent in a matter of weeks would almost certainly require widespread lockdowns in which nearly everyone shelters in place, as happened in China in January. That will not happen in the United States. Donald Trump has been campaigning for reelection on just the opposite message. He has promised that normalcy and American greatness are just around the corner. He has touted dubious treatments and said at least 34 times that the virus will disappear. This disinformation is nearing a crescendo now that the election looms: Trump has been teasing a vaccine that could be available within weeks.

The cold reality is that we should plan for a winter in which vaccination is not part of our lives. Three vaccine candidates are currently in Phase 3 clinical trials in the U.S., and the trials’ results may arrive as early as November. But even if they do—and even if they look perfect—it would not mean that a vaccine would be widely available. On Wednesday, Redfield said in a congressional hearing that a vaccine was unlikely to be widely available until summer of next year, if not later. Fauci may be even less optimistic. He told my colleague Peter Nicholas that if the clinical trials go well, it could mean a few million doses could be available by early 2021. By the time we got to 50 million to 100 million doses, he estimated, “you’re going to be well into 2021.” If each person needs two doses, as many experts expect, that would be enough to vaccinate roughly 11 percent of the population.

The virus is here to stay. At best, it would fade away gradually, but that would happen after, not before, the winter. The sooner we can accept this, the more we can focus on minimizing the losses of the bleak and grisly coming months. Some of our fate is now inevitable, but much is not. There are still basic things we can do to survive."

We managed to get new cases down to less than 22K per day in early June, (not sub 10k) but the opening up that had started prematurely then led to a surge, with a peak rate of 68k per day in July, people then reacted and slowed spread down to about 35k a few weeks ago, but as predicted due to school reopening and other lack of mitigation (masks etc), the uptick has begun anew as we're now up over 41k...we're going the opposite direction from Fauci's counsel...

This uptick will likely not result in substantial increases in deaths until November. But hospitalizations will be moving up by October (still declining from prior contraction in case rate)...expect Trump to claim that the only reason cases are going up is that "we test more than any other country" and "if we didn't test, we wouldn't have cases"...obviously stupid, but even uglier would be a constriction on actual testing and/or misreporting pressures. I think those are less likely than not, but we already saw the CDC communication get put out (over objections of the scientific staff) that asymptomatic exposed shouldn't bother with being tested...

At this point, every week more people unnecessarily die than did on 9-11 or Afghanistan over the past 20 years...most weeks, combined.

But who cares? These deaths are just older frail people or those with conditions like heart disease or diabetes or immune system disease...so, hey, let's get rid of preexisting conditions coverage...

The ACA is likely to be overturned by the new SCOTUS...potentially at the height of this next surge

Meanwhile, anyone who thinks that China is, and will be, our most significant global competitor (as I do) has to be choking on the comparison in how they are doing both in deaths and economics compared to the disaster here.

Rank incompetence here.

The world is watching...and which system of governance appears to be serving its people best?

The 12 states with the highest per capita infection rates.

To be fair, it's likely that the early states with crushing hospitalizations and deaths had high case rates during those initial months when testing was not available.

But there's no question as to where cases per 100,000 have been highest these past 4 months...and right now...

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 6:16 am How many less dead if Hillaryous Clinton had visited Wisconsin?

Now, the CDC says 6 feet isn't enough distance.....a 15 miles per hour wind does NOT carry v-19 droplets

Yup, it's BLAME CLINTON! again.