#2951  
Old 10-21-2020, 09:47 PM
Jay Dub's Avatar
Jay Dub Jay Dub is online now
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: SW Ohio
Years Playing: 40.7
Courses Played: 96
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 5,994
Niced 2,611 Times in 993 Posts
Send a message via Yahoo to Jay Dub
Default

Quote:
The Ohio Department of Health reported 2,366 new cases of COVID-19 today, the highest ever in the state. The last record-setting day was Saturday — before that, Thursday; and before that, Wednesday.
https://www.wcpo.com/news/coronaviru...time-in-a-week

Sponsored Links
Reply With Quote
  #2952  
Old 10-21-2020, 09:47 PM
txmxer txmxer is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Texas
Years Playing: 0.8
Courses Played: 2
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 574
Niced 491 Times in 236 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JedV View Post
I don't trust Mark Zuckerberg, but I do trust timg.

I'm not a world renowned epidemiologist, but I do have a Bachelor's Degree in Public Health and a Bachelor's Degree in Biological Science.

Other than your obvious skills in critical thinking, what's your background Mr.K?
And ultimately this is water cooler talk that’s not an option these days.

We do have a lot folks that are professionals in health care or related fields.

We have the additional benefit of talking to people from all over the country and learning about their experiences of being rounded up and put into boxcars.

Reply With Quote
  #2953  
Old 10-22-2020, 10:04 AM
Nick Pacific's Avatar
Nick Pacific Nick Pacific is offline
Birdie Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 352
Niced 431 Times in 193 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DG_player View Post
It was plausible back when they were at 2% positivity rates and less than 1,000 daily cases. At 20,000 daily cases and positivity approaching 10%, there's no way.
The only issue with that is assuming that only a small % of the population was exposed to the virus during the initial 1st wave. Let's guess 10% which is what some of the seroprevalence data says. What if that number was much, much higher, which it more than likely was given the death counts.

You can counter that argument by saying that seroprevalence data shows that around ~10% of the population has shown to have traditional B cell antibodies. I'd counter that by showing that only a small % anyway develop traditional B cell antibodies that show up in seroprevalence data. A very high % of infected people are asymptomatic (over 95%, maybe as high as 99%) and never develop traditional B cell antibodies that show up or their B cells wane VERY fast (within weeks). Most of them fight the infection off with T cells which do not show up in seroprevalence data.

We know that only the worst cases, often requiring hospitalization, are the ones who get infected enough for the body to mount a traditional B cell defense that stay around for months (perhaps a years). This is the 10% you're referring to. What is the % of the pop that are asymptomatic, fight off the infection with T cells, don't show up in seroprevalence data? Double the 10%? Triple it?

Could our real case numbers during March/April in the US, when testing was limited, have actually been in the hundreds of thousands/day? I'd say there is a strong possibility that yes, especially given the death counts.

That means there are potentially millions of people walking around with dead C19 RNA floating about, completely non infectious, that maybe catch a cold/don't feel well/have to get tested for work/exposure and get tested with the new testing methods that are ultra sensitive and picking up hundreds of thousands of false positives.

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #2954  
Old 10-22-2020, 11:26 AM
lyleoross's Avatar
lyleoross lyleoross is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Years Playing: 24.9
Courses Played: 2
Posts: 4,982
Niced 1,658 Times in 936 Posts
Default

Spread of COVID in rural areas - places that don't believe it's real and that don't believe masks work.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...gtype=Homepage

The Dakotas, go listen to the news. It's really ugly up there.

As an aside, spread in NY schools hasn't been that bad. But a big chunk of that is standardization of rules, and mask wearing.

On the other hand, the schools in Houston opned on Monday, and 16 shut down on Tuesday.

Good thing it's just a hoax...

My wife treats COVID folks and the nay-sayers really make me nuts. My wife has seen the entire adult population in a family die. She's seen kids lose mothers, and mothers lose infants. To not believe simply because it hasn't impacted you directly, is an awful position to take.

She has had patients shake their heads in regret when they've gotten to the point where they can't be saved. Yep, it won't kill our country, just a lof of folks that don't matter to the rich and powerful.

I've been an advocate for outside activities. That is going to change with cooler weather. No one knows how this thing will spread once it's cold and it's viability goes up. Watch the news, and see if surface spread (non-existent up to now) happens. See if spread increases even in open areas with good ventillation. Use your smarts.

Reply With Quote
  #2955  
Old 10-22-2020, 11:37 AM
lyleoross's Avatar
lyleoross lyleoross is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Years Playing: 24.9
Courses Played: 2
Posts: 4,982
Niced 1,658 Times in 936 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Pacific View Post
The only issue with that is assuming that only a small % of the population was exposed to the virus during the initial 1st wave. Let's guess 10% which is what some of the seroprevalence data says. What if that number was much, much higher, which it more than likely was given the death counts.

You can counter that argument by saying that seroprevalence data shows that around ~10% of the population has shown to have traditional B cell antibodies. I'd counter that by showing that only a small % anyway develop traditional B cell antibodies that show up in seroprevalence data. A very high % of infected people are asymptomatic (over 95%, maybe as high as 99%) and never develop traditional B cell antibodies that show up or their B cells wane VERY fast (within weeks). Most of them fight the infection off with T cells which do not show up in seroprevalence data.

We know that only the worst cases, often requiring hospitalization, are the ones who get infected enough for the body to mount a traditional B cell defense that stay around for months (perhaps a years). This is the 10% you're referring to. What is the % of the pop that are asymptomatic, fight off the infection with T cells, don't show up in seroprevalence data? Double the 10%? Triple it?

Could our real case numbers during March/April in the US, when testing was limited, have actually been in the hundreds of thousands/day? I'd say there is a strong possibility that yes, especially given the death counts.

That means there are potentially millions of people walking around with dead C19 RNA floating about, completely non infectious, that maybe catch a cold/don't feel well/have to get tested for work/exposure and get tested with the new testing methods that are ultra sensitive and picking up hundreds of thousands of false positives.
No, RNA doesn't work that way, nor does the body. The notion that there are folks harboring a pool of C19 RNA is incorrect. Keep in mind, they retest lots of folks who've had the virus and cleared it. They test them to see if they still are producing virus. And they come up negative. If any population would have RNA floating around, they would.

Biology 101, RNA has a very short half life. Our bodies turn it over very quickly. In a lab, you want to work with DNA, it's fairly stable. When your boss tells you you're doing an RNA project, you cringe. The difficulty goes up magnitudes. RNA extraction is hard and any small mistake means it degrades quickly. RNA degrading enzymes eat up your supply in a hurry.

Note, if you maintained a dead pool of C19 in your body, that would essentially be an innoculation, a vaccine. Your body could in theory be reacting to the dead virus and mounting an ever more robust immunological response. Nothing ever taught to me says that's true, and none of the data I've seen suggests this is happening. As you wrote, we see just the opposite. Light infections don't give a robust immunological response.

We still don't know absolutely, but the last I looked, a month ago, we were still only predicted to be around 9% exposure. I'm willing to trust the experts here. That would put us far below your estimate.

Niced: (3)
Reply With Quote
  #2956  
Old 10-22-2020, 03:49 PM
DG_player DG_player is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 728
Niced 355 Times in 196 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Pacific View Post
The only issue with that is assuming that only a small % of the population was exposed to the virus during the initial 1st wave. Let's guess 10% which is what some of the seroprevalence data says. What if that number was much, much higher, which it more than likely was given the death counts.

You can counter that argument by saying that seroprevalence data shows that around ~10% of the population has shown to have traditional B cell antibodies. I'd counter that by showing that only a small % anyway develop traditional B cell antibodies that show up in seroprevalence data. A very high % of infected people are asymptomatic (over 95%, maybe as high as 99%) and never develop traditional B cell antibodies that show up or their B cells wane VERY fast (within weeks). Most of them fight the infection off with T cells which do not show up in seroprevalence data.

We know that only the worst cases, often requiring hospitalization, are the ones who get infected enough for the body to mount a traditional B cell defense that stay around for months (perhaps a years). This is the 10% you're referring to. What is the % of the pop that are asymptomatic, fight off the infection with T cells, don't show up in seroprevalence data? Double the 10%? Triple it?

Could our real case numbers during March/April in the US, when testing was limited, have actually been in the hundreds of thousands/day? I'd say there is a strong possibility that yes, especially given the death counts.

That means there are potentially millions of people walking around with dead C19 RNA floating about, completely non infectious, that maybe catch a cold/don't feel well/have to get tested for work/exposure and get tested with the new testing methods that are ultra sensitive and picking up hundreds of thousands of false positives.
I agree that there were way more people infected at the beginning of the pandemic than tests indicate. If you just look at hospitalizations and deaths following what I'll call the "July re-opening surge" and compare them to the April/May timeframe, I don't think any reasonable person wouldn't conclude that had we been testing at the same level then that we wouldn't have seen daily cases well in excess of 100,000.

But as far as this whole false positive thing, I thought I pretty well covered it in a prior post, but it's basically this: If there's a bunch of people running around who were already infected, and most of the positive tests are from these people, the positive cases should correlate to the number of tests performed. They just don't. The UK is around 20,000 cases a day with 300,000 tests. A couple months ago when they did 100,000 tests if what you say is true they should have had 7,500 daily cases but they weren't even close to that, they were below 1,000 for weeks on end.

Even assuming you completely dismiss case counts as being at all useful, you can look at hospitalizations and deaths. You don't end up in the hospital or dead from a false positive. Here's the data from the UK which is where the guy in the video was addressing:

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk

You can draw your own conclusions whether actual infections are on the rise.

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #2957  
Old 10-22-2020, 03:53 PM
DG_player DG_player is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 728
Niced 355 Times in 196 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lyleoross View Post
As an aside, spread in NY schools hasn't been that bad. But a big chunk of that is standardization of rules, and mask wearing.

On the other hand, the schools in Houston opned on Monday, and 16 shut down on Tuesday.
If anything I think this should be re-assuring to anyone with a kid in school there. If they're shutting schools down briefly for a single positive case so they clean and identify contacts, it sounds to me like they're being very proactive.

If I had a kid in a school district that big and didn't hear about schools closing, I'd be real worried they weren't taking it very seriously.
Reply With Quote
  #2958  
Old 10-22-2020, 04:04 PM
DG_player DG_player is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 728
Niced 355 Times in 196 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lyleoross View Post
We still don't know absolutely, but the last I looked, a month ago, we were still only predicted to be around 9% exposure. I'm willing to trust the experts here. That would put us far below your estimate.
If you're referring to the study I think you are, that's not necessarily what it said. It said a 9% of a US population sample from July tested positive for antibodies.

#1 The case count since then has more than doubled.

#2 The value of serology testing in Covid appears to be limited. There are a lot of studies out there that suggest a lot of people don't have detectable antibodies months after exposure and a lot of asymptomatic people never develop detectable antibodies to begin with. The exact ratio of antibody positive to exposed isn't really known.

The 9% number is really just a conservative lower bound.
Reply With Quote
  #2959  
Old 10-22-2020, 04:21 PM
txmxer txmxer is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Texas
Years Playing: 0.8
Courses Played: 2
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 574
Niced 491 Times in 236 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Pacific View Post
Great discussion. What do you make of this? (time stamped for you). This doctor claims the false positive rate is likely higher than 50% (or even way higher). Would certainly help at least partially explain why the death counts nowadays are so low.

That dude is a doctor? Where did you see that?

That's the Ivermectin works guy.
Reply With Quote
 

  #2960  
Old 10-22-2020, 04:32 PM
txmxer txmxer is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Texas
Years Playing: 0.8
Courses Played: 2
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 574
Niced 491 Times in 236 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Dub View Post
This, imo, is very telling and seems to happen in this discussion often.
One side of the discussion makes a claim or nit piks a small portion of the data and claim it, alone, means something.
Then the other side of the discussion comes in seemingly well informed and makes a longer post explaining the complete truth.

I don't know which is correct because of my lack of experience with science but I'll give the detailed explanation much more credit than the one liners.
If it helps...Nick is getting his information from a YouTube channel called "Peak Prosperity".
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Am I taking this too serious? craftsman General Disc Golf Chat 47 Yesterday 08:44 PM
Taking at trip to CT discdad Vacations & Road Trips 11 05-05-2020 10:27 PM
If you were a touring pro, would you stop or keep going? COVID-19 holly7845 General Disc Golf Chat 69 03-23-2020 03:36 PM
Taking breaks KRATC Technique & Strategy 26 09-09-2012 07:47 PM
Taking DG TOO seriously??? tomjulio General Disc Golf Chat 29 07-28-2009 08:37 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.