|
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control.
It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you.
Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly.
This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here.
Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. |
+ Show Spoiler [spoilered because long] +On December 12 2020 10:11 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2020 09:29 BlackJack wrote:On December 12 2020 08:53 Vivax wrote:On December 12 2020 08:32 Dan HH wrote:Trust him guys, Vivax always knows what scientists really think but are afraid to tell you cause they don't want to suicide their careers. Here's a pic of where on my country's graph he told me too many people were immune now for a second wave to hit hard and that the disease is overhyped, when I brought up some worrying local trends following the 1st lockdown being lifted: + Show Spoiler + Trust me on what? If you want, you can applaud lockdowns, stay at home, and take the vaccine. That's your choice. Don't try to make it other peoples. I've said a while ago in this thread that the idea you couldn't get immunity after infection was nonsensical. According to my local medical university, that has recently been proven true. Sometimes thinking on your own and not just copypasting versions from the media proves to be the right approach. I could also just bleat the opinion of everyone else in here, then I'd be looking for validation and not a correct approach. "Thinking on your own" is generally very bad advice for a layman. It's not like people have firsthand knowledge regarding COVID-19. Nobody has a lab in their basement that they are using to run experiments on the virus. Everything you know about COVID-19 you've learned from other sources so you're not so much thinking on your own as you are thinking on what information you choose to believe. Sometimes you will see someone against masks say something like "The virus is 0.02 microns, you think a mask is going to be able to stop something that small? Use some common sense and think for yourself." The irony is that they have no way of measuring the virus themselves so they are completely trusting in science to believe how big the virus is but they won't trust in science to believe that masks are effective. People that claim to be thinking for themselves are often just choosing to believe junk science while ignoring real science. I don't care about mask wearing, though its effectiveness is debateable. As is the effectiveness of social distancing. Not improbable that there's more studies on that by now. I'd say lockdown is the single most effective measure, but it's draconic, and pointless if not enforced properly and followed up by preventative measures. Given that now politics is making the end of the pandemic dependent on vaccinations, one could say lockdown was effective in keeping ICUs at capacity, and a complete failure in eradicating the virus. The implication of what I mentioned is that anyone who's had Covid-19 already and maybe didn't even notice is getting restricted for no reason for what has now been almost a year. No, thinking on one's own even for laymen is highly desireable unless you want to drift into top-down-directed conformism in matters dictated by selected individuals, which opens up possibilities for all sort of abuse. For other matters like drug intake or fixing stuff, it may be accurate. Show nested quote +On December 12 2020 10:03 WombaT wrote:On December 12 2020 08:53 Vivax wrote:On December 12 2020 08:32 Dan HH wrote:Trust him guys, Vivax always knows what scientists really think but are afraid to tell you cause they don't want to suicide their careers. Here's a pic of where on my country's graph he told me too many people were immune now for a second wave to hit hard and that the disease is overhyped, when I brought up some worrying local trends following the 1st lockdown being lifted: + Show Spoiler + Trust me on what? If you want, you can applaud lockdowns, stay at home, and take the vaccine. That's your choice. Don't try to make it other peoples. I've said a while ago in this thread that the idea you couldn't get immunity after infection was nonsensical. According to my local medical university, that has recently been proven true. Sometimes thinking on your own and not just copypasting versions from the media proves to be the right approach. I could also just bleat the opinion of everyone else in here, then I'd be looking for validation and not a correct approach. What’s wrong with that? It’s a fair while ago my understanding was that science was erring on the side of proof vs assumption on that. I.e assuming that post-infection immunity was a sure-fire thing would be extremely detrimental if it was used to inform wider policy, if it subsequently proved not to be the case. Overly cautious perhaps, if understandable. Likewise the idea that it’s confirmed that children can contract the virus but not known if they can spread it. The latter would seem to appear obviously the case but they erred on confirmation. If it's covid-19 we're talking about, then the assumption that reinfection could be possible went against all evidence based on other respiratory viruses. If a related coronavirus begins with 'reinfection' at some point, then it's not Covid-19 anymore, but a new virus. Same reason you don't have lifelong immunity from the flu. It's seasonal.
Thus, whereas there is a high degree of confidence in handwashing as an intervention, there is much less certainty about the contribution of mask wearing and social distancing, including the contribution of school closures in the 2009 pandemic, and the use of thermal screening at ports has been challenged.21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 Importantly, there is controversy about the role of medical interventions such as prophylactic use of antiviral drugs, and of preventive measures that could be taken at the animal–human interface.
Published: September 01, 2014. If you're going to question the mask usage, at least find a recent source that is applicable to the current situation. There's data from every country in the world, with many orders of magnitude more infections across every demographic than SARS. That article does not apply to current situation with respect to masks. Widespread mask use alone won't stop it, but it'll take a few tenths off the innate R0 value at minimum. Here's a more recent study.
Seven studies have confirmed the benefit of universal masking in community level analyses: in a unified hospital system,38 a German city,39 a U.S. state,40 a panel of 15 U.S. states and Washington, D.C.,41,42 as well as both Canada43 and the U.S.44 nationally. Each analysis demonstrated that, following directives from organizational and political leadership for universal masking, new infections fell significantly. Two of these studies42,44 and an additional analysis of data from 200 countries that included the U.S.45 also demonstrated reductions in mortality. An economic analysis using U.S. data found that, given these effects, increasing universal masking by 15% could prevent the need for lockdowns and reduce associated losses of up to $1 trillion or about 5% of gross domestic product.42
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/more/masking-science-sars-cov2.html
Lockdowns are very successful when used properly, and the ONLY method so far that has been shown to be able to eradicate the virus when combined with other methods. It's just very politically damaging unless you have populace buy-in and enough social safety nets to let it run to that point. A proper lockdown needs to last long enough for 3+ generations of the virus to die out, and then aggressively hunt down the few remaining cases. China, Australia, NZ etc. all used the method to pretty great success, and they can host parties, hold live events etc. Life mostly as normal aside from international travel. Personally, I think at this point, 9 months into continuous restrictions, where every few weeks we just get more limits put on, I would much rather have taken that approach(lockdown for 1.5-2 months) from the start than the constant worry and restrictions that'll be here for another 6-8 months until widespread vaccination. Most people I know have pretty much written off their in-person social lives for 9 months now, and it'll be quite some time before it gets better.
I've had a couple people at my workplace(semi-empty office) test positive now, and it's super nerve wracking when I get a notification. Whole office closes, a whole department is now in isolation etc.
|
On December 12 2020 10:11 Vivax wrote:
If it's covid-19 we're talking about, then the assumption that reinfection could be possible went against all evidence based on other respiratory viruses. If a related coronavirus begins with 'reinfection' at some point, then it's not Covid-19 anymore, but a new virus. Same reason you don't have lifelong immunity from the flu. It's seasonal.
Respiratory viruses is a classification akin to forest critters. The preferred environments of organisms say very little about their likeness. Making assumptions of your body's ability to fight off snakes based on previous experience against squirrels is not what we call evidence.
Just to be clear, my example is not meant as hyperbole or a reduction to the absurd. Snakes and squirrels are in the same phylum, coronaviruses and influenzaviruses are not.
|
On December 13 2020 03:12 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2020 10:11 Vivax wrote:
If it's covid-19 we're talking about, then the assumption that reinfection could be possible went against all evidence based on other respiratory viruses. If a related coronavirus begins with 'reinfection' at some point, then it's not Covid-19 anymore, but a new virus. Same reason you don't have lifelong immunity from the flu. It's seasonal. Respiratory viruses is a classification akin to forest critters. The preferred environments of organisms say very little about their likeness. Making assumptions of your body's ability to fight off snakes based on previous experience against squirrels is not what we call evidence. Just to be clear, my example is not meant as hyperbole or a reduction to the absurd. Snakes and squirrels are in the same phylum, coronaviruses and influenzaviruses are not.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2851497/
According to the source, you're good for three years after getting Sars-Cov-1.
In analogy to this, probably the closest relative to Covid-19, why was the notion put forth that reinfection was possible within the same year?
At the very least, let people go about their business unhindered by oppressing restrictions after a Covid-19 infection for three years.
Possibly the fear was that you'd have them get infected on purpose. From what I've observed in conversations with people around me, the majority values their freedom, economic and social well-being more than avoiding the risk of getting ill from it.
Do you want to keep living for what could possibly be several more years in a country that allows precautionary isolation for healthy or immune individuals?
|
On December 13 2020 03:54 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2020 03:12 Dan HH wrote:On December 12 2020 10:11 Vivax wrote:
If it's covid-19 we're talking about, then the assumption that reinfection could be possible went against all evidence based on other respiratory viruses. If a related coronavirus begins with 'reinfection' at some point, then it's not Covid-19 anymore, but a new virus. Same reason you don't have lifelong immunity from the flu. It's seasonal. Respiratory viruses is a classification akin to forest critters. The preferred environments of organisms say very little about their likeness. Making assumptions of your body's ability to fight off snakes based on previous experience against squirrels is not what we call evidence. Just to be clear, my example is not meant as hyperbole or a reduction to the absurd. Snakes and squirrels are in the same phylum, coronaviruses and influenzaviruses are not. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2851497/According to the source, you're good for three years after getting Sars-Cov-1. In analogy to this, probably the closest relative to Covid-19, why was the notion put forth that reinfection was possible within the same year?At the very least, let people go about their business unhindered by oppressing restrictions after a Covid-19 infection for three years. Possibly the fear was that you'd have them get infected on purpose. From what I've observed in conversations with people around me, the majority values their freedom, economic and social well-being more than avoiding the risk of getting ill from it. Do you want to keep living for what could possibly be several more years in a country that allows precautionary isolation for healthy or immune individuals?
The bolded part is the issue here. "There is no evidence of X" doesn't mean X is false. When the WHO said at the start of the year "there is no evidence of human-to-human transmission" it meant just that, it wasn't wrong. Sars-cov-1 having established human-to-human transmission wasn't evidence of Sars-cov-2 transmission.
Even if there weren't other visible key differences between them such as lethality or reproductive rate, it simply wasn't a responsible assumption to make that acquired immunity would work the same way when the idea of immunity passports floated by.
|
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Still a common logical fallacy many fall into, I suppose simply due to the way our brains filter information. It's not productive to cower in your home with a loaded gun imaging every possible criminal who might try to force their way in, but it's still a good idea to lock the door.
For some reason western (generalizing, as culture may be less a factor than experience) culture/philosophy has us so focused and concerned with our individual lives and wants that we short sightedly view temperary restrictions and precautions as an affront to our ego. Change is that scary, we would rather risk exposure to a potential threat on our lives than deviate from what we are comfortable with.
I am fully aware there are economic repercussions to a government enforced lockdown, and some businesses will suffer or even die. Is that better or worse than large swaths of people getting sick and then fear affecting people going out in public. Personally I feel like the economy is more likely to stay stable or recover if more people survive this pandemic and it's curbed to being controllable. Otherwise it would take years for herd immunity to work and possibly longer if it ends up like the flu or the cold.
To me it seems like this pandemic has forced people to confront the reality that we are far less in control of our world than we would like to believe. I find most of the poor reactions to covid-19 stem from this.
|
Is the jury still out on whether reinfection is possible with COVID-19? I'm still hearing anecdotes of people falling ill again and testing positive months after first getting ill and testing positive.
|
On December 14 2020 06:55 BlackJack wrote:
Is the jury still out on whether reinfection is possible with COVID-19? I'm still hearing anecdotes of people falling ill again and testing positive months after first getting ill and testing positive.
Yesterday I posted two studies on it.
https://tl.net/forum/general/556693-coronavirus-and-you?page=309#6179
|
On December 12 2020 19:46 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2020 09:29 BlackJack wrote:On December 12 2020 08:53 Vivax wrote:On December 12 2020 08:32 Dan HH wrote:Trust him guys, Vivax always knows what scientists really think but are afraid to tell you cause they don't want to suicide their careers. Here's a pic of where on my country's graph he told me too many people were immune now for a second wave to hit hard and that the disease is overhyped, when I brought up some worrying local trends following the 1st lockdown being lifted: + Show Spoiler + Trust me on what? If you want, you can applaud lockdowns, stay at home, and take the vaccine. That's your choice. Don't try to make it other peoples. I've said a while ago in this thread that the idea you couldn't get immunity after infection was nonsensical. According to my local medical university, that has recently been proven true. Sometimes thinking on your own and not just copypasting versions from the media proves to be the right approach. I could also just bleat the opinion of everyone else in here, then I'd be looking for validation and not a correct approach. "Thinking on your own" is generally very bad advice for a layman. It's not like people have firsthand knowledge regarding COVID-19. Nobody has a lab in their basement that they are using to run experiments on the virus. Everything you know about COVID-19 you've learned from other sources so you're not so much thinking on your own as you are thinking on what information you choose to believe. Sometimes you will see someone against masks say something like "The virus is 0.02 microns, you think a mask is going to be able to stop something that small? Use some common sense and think for yourself." The irony is that they have no way of measuring the virus themselves so they are completely trusting in science to believe how big the virus is but they won't trust in science to believe that masks are effective. People that claim to be thinking for themselves are often just choosing to believe junk science while ignoring real science. I disagree here. Thinking on your own is generally a good thing. Some people are just really bad at it. For example, if you are thinking on your own about something you have no clue about, the only reasonable conclusion is to either trust what people who know more about it say, or to put in a lot more research yourself. The problem with thinking on your own is that a lot of people are utterly untrained in it, and assume that their pathetic attempts at babies first reasoning are the pinnacle of genius thought. Step one of thinking on your own about a topic is getting a good understanding of what the commonly held ideas about that topic are.
That's why I said it's generally bad, not always bad. The amount of laypeople that are going to adequately research a topic they know very little about to form a reasonable and objective opinion is very small. The amount of people that already have some preconceived notion of what they want to believe is true and then go to google.com and type "show me why i'm right" is enormous.
|
I missed that, thanks. From reading the abstract of the 2nd article
Conclusions: SARS-CoV-2 reinfection can occur but is a rare phenomenon suggestive of a strong protective immunity against reinfection that lasts for at least a few months post primary infection.
"At least a few months" is kind of vague. Most of the anecdotes I am hearing regarding reinfection are at 4+ months.
|
On December 14 2020 08:13 BlackJack wrote:I missed that, thanks. From reading the abstract of the 2nd article Show nested quote +Conclusions: SARS-CoV-2 reinfection can occur but is a rare phenomenon suggestive of a strong protective immunity against reinfection that lasts for at least a few months post primary infection. "At least a few months" is kind of vague. Most of the anecdotes I am hearing regarding reinfection are at 4+ months. Its kind of hard to be more specific when most people were only infected "a few months" ago.
|
The first of the two studies I posted states that, so far, immunity can't be ruled out for 8 months.
So at this point it's reasonable to assume that immunity after infection lasts about the same as it should with other viruses. I'll keep looking at future studies on reinfection.
|
Oregon nurses began receiving vaccines today. Pretty exciting
|
So where do folks here stand on the vaccine? If you get offered it tomorrow, will you be taking it? Or is anyone taking a skeptical or wait-and-see approach to its rollout?
|
On December 16 2020 15:49 LegalLord wrote:
So where do folks here stand on the vaccine? If you get offered it tomorrow, will you be taking it? Or is anyone taking a skeptical or wait-and-see approach to its rollout?
I’d jab it in my arm if someone put it in my hand right now
|
Pretty much. The risks of the vaccine (any of the mainstream ones really) seem insignificant relative to the risk of the disease, and I'm quite ready to be done with quarantine. Now is not the time for any form of regulatory feet-dragging or supply chain fudge-ups.
|
If I had the vaccine, I'd jab my parents first, and if there's any leftovers, myself.
More than 1% of the population in Canada has gotten Covid, and the risks of side/long term effects is really high. The side effects from the vaccine are shortlived (days), and mild in comparison. Any risk is probably around 1/50000 or lower, and I'm pretty sure more than 1/50 people who have gotten covid have had mid-long term side effects.
There's essentially no case where catching covid is better than taking the jab for me.
|
On December 16 2020 15:49 LegalLord wrote:
So where do folks here stand on the vaccine? If you get offered it tomorrow, will you be taking it? Or is anyone taking a skeptical or wait-and-see approach to its rollout?
I'll be taking it as soon as it's available for me to take. I don't mind patiently waiting my turn, while those in more dire circumstances get access to it first, but I want the vaccine and I want everyone else who can medically receive it to get the vaccine.
|
On December 16 2020 15:49 LegalLord wrote:
So where do folks here stand on the vaccine? If you get offered it tomorrow, will you be taking it? Or is anyone taking a skeptical or wait-and-see approach to its rollout?
Since I live a relatively isolated life and I'm in good health, my plan is to get it after the key demographics have been served, whenever that will be. I'll also get tested first because immunity after infection is very likely. Depending on the result there may not be any added benefit from vaccination. That would free it up for someone else.
|
Apparently there‘s a conventional vaccine in phase 2 by novavax which consists of spike proteins. I‘ll take that one, and leave the mRNA version to more temerary volunteers.
If just injecting me with the protein is enough for immunogenicity, why go as far as making my cells produce it? Seems risky and unnecessary, but apparently it‘s cheaper, or fancy.
|
I'm not scared of the vaccine, but on the on the other hand I'm not scared of getting the disease either since I'm young and healthy. So I'd rather wait for my turn and give the shot to someone in greater need of it. Actually, I'd rather wait a little bit to take the vaccine too since it has been rushed and it could have unknown side effects (such things have happened before - we had an outbreak of narcolepsy in Sweden a couple years ago because of a flue vaccine). But, coming to think about it, if I could get the vaccine before Christmas I'd take it to be able to celebrate as usual with elder family members....
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/dfNEhGY.png)
