COVID-19

[SwampD]

33 minutes ago, Wyldnwoody44 said:

I think that's actually quite appropriate, it's easy to use, doesn't hurt supply for those in Healthcare and serves a basic purpose....plus people look a lot less stupid with a bandana on their face than an inappropriately worn medical grade mask. 

I only ask because I got a pack of 5 surgical masks from my brother. He was going to give them to my niece, she works at the HUMC ER, all Covid cases. She obviously couldn’t use them.

I only wear it to protect others from me. Wouldn’t a surgical mask have about the same efficacy as a bandana? Why the chuckle, since I don’t own a bandana.

[Zamboni]

I think if you already had 3M N95 compliant masks in your basement because you are a handyman and you use them for various projects ... and you want to wear them properly when you go to the store for essential food supplies or other essential items ... there is nothing wrong with that.

[Stoner]

The White House was given "bad news" last week about antibody tests, namely that some of the tests already out there are "crappy" and reliable tests are still a work in progress; also, the question of whether having had Covid-19 confers immunity/enough immunity remains the "$64 question."*

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/14/health/coronavirus-antibody-tests-scientists/index.html

*"$64 question" is a reference to a 1940s radio game show, for those who don't remember. I surely do. My kids loved it.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

8 hours ago, Crosschecking said:

Don't forget the #TrudeauEulogies from a few years ago. Boy, did he get roasted for that!

He did, indeed.  I actually don't have a problem with his Eulogy of Castro, when taken in the light of the fact that our PMs late father and Castro were good friends.  Castro was in attendance at Pierre's funeral and was an honorary pall bearer.  There is a long family and personal history between the two families.  I think there was a lot of over-reaction to the Castro Eulogy that started all the twitter nonsense.

[Taro T]

2 hours ago, SwampD said:

I only ask because I got a pack of 5 surgical masks from my brother. He was going to give them to my niece, she works at the HUMC ER, all Covid cases. She obviously couldn’t use them.

I only wear it to protect others from me. Wouldn’t a surgical mask have about the same efficacy as a bandana? Why the chuckle, since I don’t own a bandana.

Calling BS here.

Wtf ever heard of a bass player WITHOUT a bandana?

?

[Stoner]

The lead NIH researcher working on a vaccine said on CNN that "if everything goes well," an emergency use vaccine would be available to healthcare workers and first responders in the fall with the goal of innoculating everyone around the world by spring of 2021. Wouldn't that be something!

[Zamboni]

Physicians seeking relief for their COVID-19 patients are turning to convalescent plasma transfusions using antibodies from recovered coronavirus cases.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/health/florida-physicians-optimistic-covid-19-plasma-transfusion-testing

 

[LabattBlue]

I was never much of a science person, so help me out...

 

In this day and age of modern medicine, and all kind of experts and $$$ to work on the problem, why would it take a year or more to develop a vaccine, and put this to rest?

[Eleven]

16 minutes ago, LabattBlue said:

I was never much of a science person, so help me out...

 

In this day and age of modern medicine, and all kind of experts and $$$ to work on the problem, why would it take a year or more to develop a vaccine, and put this to rest?

I don't know that much, either, but viruses take a while to analyze.  Then they have to find the right vaccine.  HIV is a virus, for example, and we've known about it for what, 40 years?  We can treat some/most of the symptoms now, but we don't have a vaccine--and not for lack of effort / funding.

Edited April 15, 2020 by Eleven

[Taro T]

35 minutes ago, LabattBlue said:

I was never much of a science person, so help me out...

 

In this day and age of modern medicine, and all kind of experts and $$$ to work on the problem, why would it take a year or more to develop a vaccine, and put this to rest?

 

19 minutes ago, Eleven said:

I don't know that much, either, but viruses take a while to analyze.  Then they have to find the right vaccine.  HIV is a virus, for example, and we've known about it for what, 40 years?  We can treat some/most of the symptoms now, but we don't have a vaccine--and not for lack of effort / funding.

Claude Verret actually works in the field.  He should be able to give a very good answer.

There's a lot more to it than just analyzing the virus.  They also need to know what portions of the virus would make it identifiable to our immune systems and then inject dead/incapacitated versions of the pathogen or portions of it into our blood to get the immune response.

They have to make sure those "dead" pathogens don't create problems of their own but yet also cause enough of a response that the body can fight off a real infection.  If the response isn't great enough, no immunity.

Then there's actual testing, a lot of those protocols will likely get waived for the 1st release of a vaccine; but who wants to be the recipient of the non-fully tested vaccine?  And it's not like the testing (even streamlined) of the vaccination could be done in a few days.

Then you have to scale up production and all production has to be done precisely to protocols, because any impurities of the chemicals produced from production might be deadly.

[dudacek]

Basically, they've never come up with one faster than the 12-18-month window they're projecting.

But they've never thrown this much effort into one either, or had as much need, two factors which could accelerate things and mean some are saying that we may see one as early as this fall, or nine months in.

[LabattBlue]

57 minutes ago, Taro T said:

 

Claude Verret actually works in the field.  He should be able to give a very good answer.

There's a lot more to it than just analyzing the virus.  They also need to know what portions of the virus would make it identifiable to our immune systems and then inject dead/incapacitated versions of the pathogen or portions of it into our blood to get the immune response.

They have to make sure those "dead" pathogens don't create problems of their own but yet also cause enough of a response that the body can fight off a real infection.  If the response isn't great enough, no immunity.

Then there's actual testing, a lot of those protocols will likely get waived for the 1st release of a vaccine; but who wants to be the recipient of the non-fully tested vaccine?  And it's not like the testing (even streamlined) of the vaccination could be done in a few days.

Then you have to scale up production and all production has to be done precisely to protocols, because any impurities of the chemicals produced from production might be deadly.

I'm sure everyone will be working as hard and fast as possible  Just frustrating.  Thanks for the info.

[LGR4GM]

A french study looking at hydroxichloroquinine found it not to have a statistically significant impact on covid patients. Basically it didn't correlate to improved outcomes and had side effects. 

[#freejame]

8 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

A french study looking at hydroxichloroquinine found it not to have a statistically significant impact on covid patients. Basically it didn't correlate to improved outcomes and had side effects. 

Not arguing about the efficacy of hudroxichloroquine but rather asking are the side effects of it in testing covid any different than its normal side effects? It’s well known it’s for some crazy side effects. It’s why we don’t give it to troops in the Middle East anymore and now give out Doxy. 

[FogBat]

I think Bud Light should come out with a new set of Real American Heroes ads highlighting the essential workers and what they're doing to help everyone else out (without crass innuendo this time).

[Taro T]

49 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

A french study looking at hydroxichloroquinine found it not to have a statistically significant impact on covid patients. Basically it didn't correlate to improved outcomes and had side effects. 

Source?

[Indabuff]

3 hours ago, dudacek said:

Basically, they've never come up with one faster than the 12-18-month window they're projecting.

But they've never thrown this much effort into one either, or had as much need, two factors which could accelerate things and mean some are saying that we may see one as early as this fall, or nine months in.

I'm guessing they'll get there sooner based on the global response but my question is if this virus has mutated will a vaccine protect against all strains?  Influenza has multiple subtypes so there's no guarantee the flu vaccine of the year will be effective.  Would that be a similar situation with this virus?

[Eleven]

4 hours ago, Taro T said:

but who wants to be the recipient of the non-fully tested vaccine?

Anyone who is diagnosed as terminal would jump at it.

1 hour ago, Taro T said:

Source?

France, duh.

Edited April 16, 2020 by Eleven

[Brawndo]

3 hours ago, #freejame said:

Not arguing about the efficacy of hudroxichloroquine but rather asking are the side effects of it in testing covid any different than its normal side effects? It’s well known it’s for some crazy side effects. It’s why we don’t give it to troops in the Middle East anymore and now give out Doxy. 

Nope, just a lot more people experiencing them as it’s being taken on a much larger scale. 

Edited April 16, 2020 by Brawndo

[bunomatic]

The quickest a vaccine was tested and approved with all the proper protocols etc was 4 years and that was a vaccine for the mumps. 18 months seems absolute best case scenario and is prolly fraught with danger. So much that can go wrong. But like was mentioned upthread a few posts if the world works together who knows whats possible.

[nucci]

On 4/14/2020 at 6:01 PM, sabremike said:

do you see the irony as a Sabre fan?

[LGR4GM]

11 hours ago, Taro T said:

Source?

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.10.20060699v1

Edited April 16, 2020 by LGR4GM

[Stoner]

8 hours ago, bunomatic said:

The quickest a vaccine was tested and approved with all the proper protocols etc was 4 years and that was a vaccine for the mumps. 18 months seems absolute best case scenario and is prolly fraught with danger. So much that can go wrong. But like was mentioned upthread a few posts if the world works together who knows whats possible.

The lead researcher at the NIH disagrees.

I think the old sales adage of underpromising and overdelivering applies here. Way too much wealth is at stake. We'll be jabbed in time for Turkey Day!

10 hours ago, Eleven said:

Anyone who is diagnosed as terminal would jump at it.

France, duh.

How the ***** would a vaccine help someone who's already infected? Expect you don't know much about immunology.

Am I doing this right?

[Eleven]

9 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

How the ***** would a vaccine help someone who's already infected? Expect you don't know much about immunology.

Am I doing this right?

No.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

14 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

A french study looking at hydroxichloroquinine found it not to have a statistically significant impact on covid patients. Basically it didn't correlate to improved outcomes and had side effects. 

It is an immuno surppressant designed to calm a hyperactive immune system.  The very nature of it is to calm the immune system in the later stages of COVID-19 infection when the immune system is hyperactive to try to calm it enough that the normal immune system levels would kick in to fight the COVIS-19, which seems counter-intuitive to me.

Mind you, I'm no doctor, or scientist, so maybe I'm just blowing stuff out of my ass here ...