COVID-19 | science, damage limitation, NO POLITICS

[Robert Roaldi]

Stop spinning. The CDC was wrong and deceptive.  The CDC said masks were not needed in the public when the pandemic started.  They wanted average people to not hoard masks so they would be more available to the medical community to purchase.

I don't know what you mean by deceptive. The way I remember it, they were pretty up front about having enough PPEs for medical staff, they never deceived anybody. They said exactly that.

Now that things are opening up a bit so that people come into closer contact than before and there are more masks available, they've changed their stance. This is more or less what's happening everywhere else, with slightly different timings.

[Alan Klein]

I don't know what you mean by deceptive. The way I remember it, they were pretty up front about having enough PPEs for medical staff, they never deceived anybody. They said exactly that.

Now that things are opening up a bit so that people come into closer contact than before and there are more masks available, they've changed their stance. This is more or less what's happening everywhere else, with slightly different timings.

No. In the beginning they said that people on the street don't need them.  They deliberately lied to us. If they didn't then they are incompetent, which is worse.  These people have been studying viral infection for decades.  They never figured out that masks are good for you?  What kind of moron scientists are working for them?

[jeremyrh]

No. In the beginning they said that people on the street don't need them.  They deliberately lied to us. If they didn't then they are incompetent, which is worse.  These people have been studying viral infection for decades.  They never figured out that masks are good for you?  What kind of moron scientists are working for them?

Clue:  not all viruses are the same and not all viruses are transmitted in the same way.  For example, wearing a mask is not a good way to avoid HIV.

[Robert Roaldi]

No. In the beginning they said that people on the street don't need them.  They deliberately lied to us. If they didn't then they are incompetent, which is worse.  These people have been studying viral infection for decades.  They never figured out that masks are good for you?  What kind of moron scientists are working for them?

Well, that's not at all how I remember it but I could be wrong. And anyway, in general masks are not THAT effective on the street, are they? Here in Canada, they're promoting them for indoor use or where people are close together.

As for "deliberately lying", you're exaggerating. They were upfront about the mask shortages right from the get go. The rest of your statement is troll-bait.

[faberryman]

For example, wearing a mask is not a good way to avoid HIV.

It depends on what you wear it on. You just want to make sure it is a snug fit.

[hogloff]

No. In the beginning they said that people on the street don't need them.  They deliberately lied to us. If they didn't then they are incompetent, which is worse.  These people have been studying viral infection for decades.  They never figured out that masks are good for you?  What kind of moron scientists are working for them?

Alan, you have the same view of doctors that lied to you and investors that just rob you. Man I'd hate going through life being so perinoid. Seems like everyone out there is there just to screw you over.

[faberryman]

Good news for Alan. CNN reports that Trump is going to be doing the revived daily coronavirus briefings solo. They'll be no one there from the CDC, HHS, NIH, or any of the other health agencies so there will be no opportunity for anyone to lie to you.

[jeremyrh]

Good news for Alan. CNN reports that Trump is going to be doing the revived daily coronavirus briefings solo. They'll be no one there from the CDC, HHS, NIH, or any of the other health agencies so there will be no opportunity for anyone to lie to you.

LOL :-)

[Alan Klein]

It depends on what you wear it on. You just want to make sure it is a snug fit.

Well you can put a condom over your head.

[LesPalenik]

With the Brazilian President Bolsonaro's Covid-19 re-infection we have now a strong evidence that recovered individuals have limited or no immune protection from re-infection. This case demonstrates also that the hydroxychloroquine, endorsed by Bolsonaro is ineffective in getting rid of the disease. Even more worrisome are the long term effects, such as lung scarring, irregular heartbeat, liver function and encephalopathy (brain damage) from the repeated illness.

Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro has had another positive result for the novel coronavirus in the third test he has taken since falling ill on July 7, a secretariat of the Communications Ministry said on Wednesday.

Estimates of exact prevalence vary, but it seems that roughly 50% of patients diagnosed with Sars-CoV-2 – the virus responsible for causing the illness Covid-19 – have experienced neurological problems.

The extent and severity of these neurological issues has flown largely under the radar. Most people, including physicians, may not recognise neurological abnormalities for what they are when they appear – someone experiencing a seizure may simply look dazed, without any trembling or shaking. With its beeping machinery, sedative drugs and bed-bound isolation, an ICU environment can exacerbate and induce delirium, confounding our ability to link any symptom to the virus.

Further complicating matters, many people suffering from the effects of Sars-CoV-2 are never actually tested for the virus, especially if they do not exhibit a cough or fever. It means that if they have neurological symptoms, we may never know if this was linked to Sars-CoV-2.

Now, more than 300 studies from around the world have found a prevalence of neurological abnormalities in Covid-19 patients, including mild symptoms like headaches, loss of smell (anosmia) and tingling sensations (arcoparasthesia), up to more severe outcomes such as aphasia (inability to speak), strokes and seizures. This is in addition to recent findings that the virus, which has been largely considered to be a respiratory disease, can also wreak havoc on the kidneys, liver, heart, and just about every organ system in the body.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200622-the-long-term-effects-of-covid-19-infection

[Alan Klein]

With the Brazilian President Bolsonaro's Covid-19 re-infection we have now a strong evidence that recovered individuals have limited or no immune protection from re-infection. This case demonstrates also that the hydroxychloroquine, endorsed by Bolsonaro is ineffective in getting rid of the disease. Even more worrisome are the long term effects, such as lung scarring, irregular heartbeat, liver function and encephalopathy (brain damage) from the repeated illness.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200622-the-long-term-effects-of-covid-19-infection

Then why are we placing so much confidence in a vaccine?

[faberryman]

Then why are we placing so much confidence in a vaccine?

Don't fall for it. The experts are just lying to you.

[Alan Klein]

Don't fall for it. The experts are just lying to you.

You didn't address my question.  If the virus comes back even after being infected once, as apparently happened to Bolsonaro, what value would a vaccine have?  Of course, you can just trust the experts, make a joke at my expense,  and ignore this question at your peril. 

Second, let's leave aside the re-infection issue.  Even scientists are saying they would consider a vaccine a success if it was 50% effective.  I think most people think it would be more generally protective than that.  If it is only 50%, so how will that change public policy?  After all, would you put your family in danger just knowing that 50% of them are protected?  Which 50%? Would you go traveling in a crowded airplane knowing you have a 50/50 shot of getting sick?  Will governments shut down places anyway based on 50% efficacy?  Are the stock markets and economies of the world putting too much hope in a vaccine?

[LesPalenik]

Then why are we placing so much confidence in a vaccine?

Gullibility and desperation?

[Alan Klein]

Gullibility and desperation?

... and greed.

[Robert Roaldi]

Then why are we placing so much confidence in a vaccine?

Because they have worked very well.

Immunity is what the body tries to do on its own anyway. So science has found ways to "trick" the body's immune system into protecting itself. Sounds like the very best of scientific thinking to me, much better than hoping that some magical drug will fix things after you get sick. We have all kinds of vaccines that work very well.

[Robert Roaldi]

... and greed.

Change the record, please.

[faberryman]

You didn't address my question.  If the virus comes back even after being infected once, as apparently happened to Bolsonaro, what value would a vaccine have?  Of course, you can just trust the experts, make a joke at my expense, and ignore this question at your peril.

Well, since I am not a scientist, I'm not sure I can add any clarity to the issue. Alan Goldhammer offered his thoughts on this issue in post 1783. You agreed with his analysis in post 1784. Have you changed your mind?

Second, let's leave aside the re-infection issue.  Even scientists are saying they would consider a vaccine a success if it was 50% effective.  I think most people think it would be more generally protective than that.  If it is only 50%, so how will that change public policy?  After all, would you put your family in danger just knowing that 50% of them are protected?  Which 50%? Would you go traveling in a crowded airplane knowing you have a 50/50 shot of getting sick?  Will governments shut down places anyway based on 50% efficacy?  Is the stock markets and economies of the world putting too much hope in a vaccine?

I dunno. Do all scientists agree with the 50% effective assessment? My initial reactions is 50% is better than nothing. I mean we don't have a vaccine yet, much less one that is 50% effective, and people are going about their business.  Trump wants all the schools to open up full time without a vaccine, so obviously he is not too concerned about it.   But some people are more risk adverse than others, and will wait inside with their masks on and hand sanitizer at the ready until scientists develop a vaccine that is 100% effective. Of course you still have to decide whether you believe them when they say it really is 100% effective.  They may just be exaggerating.

[Robert Roaldi]

Second, let's leave aside the re-infection issue.  Even scientists are saying they would consider a vaccine a success if it was 50% effective.  I think most people think it would be more generally protective than that.  If it is only 50%, so how will that change public policy?  After all, would you put your family in danger just knowing that 50% of them are protected?  Which 50%? Would you go traveling in a crowded airplane knowing you have a 50/50 shot of getting sick?  Will governments shut down places anyway based on 50% efficacy?  Are the stock markets and economies of the world putting too much hope in a vaccine?

This is old ground. A vaccine acts in many ways like social distancing. The more people that do not get the virus, either because it wasn't transmitted to them or their body's immune system kills it, means that there are that many fewer people around to transmit it to others. This was discussed in a thousand ways back in Feb/March. None of that has changed. The fewer people have it, the less chance there is that others will catch it. That's how you control contagious disease. Why do we have to keep re-visiting this.

[Alan Klein]

Well, since I am not a scientist, I'm not sure I can add any clarity to the issue. Alan Goldhammer offered his thoughts on this issue in post 1783. You agreed with his analysis in post 1784. Have you changed your mind?

I dunno. Do all scientists agree with the 50% effective assessment? My initial reactions is 50% is better than nothing. I mean we don't have a vaccine yet, much less one that is 50$ effective and people are going about their business.  But some people are more risk adverse than others, and will wait inside with their masks on and hand sanitizer at the ready until scientists develop a vaccine that is 100% effect. Of course you still have to decide whether you are going to believe them that it really is 100% effective.  The may just be exaggerating.

What Goldhammer and I posted way back has nothing to do with the current issue.  Les posted a comment today that said that Bolsonaro got it twice.  That's the first time I heard that re-infection happened.  If a person can get infected a second time, it raises the question just how efficacious a vaccine can be. 

I think the general public thinks it's going to be a cure-all.  Stock market and economies are acting daily on news about the vaccine like it's going to end the virus.  We may be getting ahead of ourselves.  Research I've done with the seasonal flu indicates an effectiveness of only 40% some years.  If we repeat that with Covid 19, it doesn't add much faith that I'll be protected running around close to people.  I still would want to protect myself.  At 40%, the airlines, theatres, ball parks,  and cruise ships will still stay empty.  I'd still be careful what stock to buy.