Jump to content

SLU & NCAA Corona Virus Discussion


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, SLU_Nick said:

Is that because those Viruses are impossible to get a vaccine for?  

Or bc after it went away there was no reason to invest in a vaccine?

Nick, a vaccine for a normal pandemic virus is a loss leader for private industry. Vaccine trials and formulations are very expensive(3-10 mil,) and May only be one trick ponies.

With vaccine development being market driven and reactive, there has not been enough money for both R&D, and then clinical testing.

Even with enough money, there are close to a dozen facets of virus functions, and research has to dictate which facet of the virus to focus on.

If we had completed the whole lifecycle of vaccine development for both MERS and SARS, we would have educated guesses based on evidence based practices, rather than shotgunning the process yet again.

It all comes down to money; past funding decisions to shorting research is now killing people, and blocking an expedited vaccine development.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

17 minutes ago, brianstl said:

What was done needed to be done so the medical system wouldn’t be overwhelmed. That said the sad thing is no lives were saved.  Those deaths were just delayed.  This is a novel virus that spreads easily.  It is going to keep spreading and keep taking lives until their is a vaccine.  The vaccine is years away at least.  It could be decades away.

So going forward what kind of world are we willing to live in for the next five or more years?  Because that is what is what we are deciding.  Do you want a world where you don’t vacation away from you live? Are you cool with never going to a sporting event again?  Are you ok with peoples kids not be able to play team sports?  High schoolers never having a school dance? No traditional church services? No more Fair St. Louis? No school picnics?

Because that is the next five years of slowing the spread.  These are the things we need to ask ourselves.  The virus isn’t a few month thing or even an 18 month thing.  COVID 19 is our long term future.  We need to come to terms with that.

This is a speculative, worse-case scenario. COVID-19 could be eradicated if we trace back to the origin and implement large-scale testing. Unfortunately, China has been less than open to virus hunters since COVID-19 popped up. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, brianstl said:

What was done needed to be done so the medical system wouldn’t be overwhelmed. That said the sad thing is no lives were saved.  Those deaths were just delayed.  This is a novel virus that spreads easily.  It is going to keep spreading and keep taking lives until their is a vaccine.  The vaccine is years away at least.  It could be decades away.

So going forward what kind of world are we willing to live in for the next five or more years?  Because that is what is what we are deciding.  Do you want a world where you don’t vacation away from you live? Are you cool with never going to a sporting event again?  Are you ok with peoples kids not be able to play team sports?  High schoolers never having a school dance? No traditional church services? No more Fair St. Louis? No school picnics?

Because that is the next five years of slowing the spread.  These are the things we need to ask ourselves.  The virus isn’t a few month thing or even an 18 month thing.  COVID 19 is our long term future.  We need to come to terms with that.

Lives have definitely been saved... The less people outside, gathering, and going about their daily business leads to less exposure to the mass populus. Less exposure equals less death. Unless there is something wrong with this logic...

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, GBL_Bills said:

Disagree with this point. Spreading out cases means everyone has access to ICU equipment who needs them. There was a story out of Italy of a 70 yo priest giving up his ventilator so someone else could be put on it. The priest ended up dying. Would he have lived if he stayed on the ventilator? Who knows? If we avoided making war-time triage decisions, we probably saved lives.

Those would have been people who died because of a failed health system.  Those deaths would have included many more people who died of things not connected to the virus.  People that are going to die of Coronavirus are still going to die of Coronavirus. I have read multiple things suggesting herd immunity with this virus won’t be achieved until 90-95% of the population has contracted it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, brianstl said:

Those would have been people who died because of a failed health system.  Those deaths would have included many more people who died of things not connected to the virus.  People that are going to die of Coronavirus are still going to die of Coronavirus. I have read multiple things suggesting herd immunity with this virus won’t be achieved until 90-95% of the population has contracted it.

I'm confused by your distinction here. The priest in Italy was on a ventilator because of coronavirus, and he gave it up to someone else who had coronavirus.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, brianstl said:

What was done needed to be done so the medical system wouldn’t be overwhelmed. That said the sad thing is no lives were saved.  Those deaths were just delayed.  This is a novel virus that spreads easily.  It is going to keep spreading and keep taking lives until their is a vaccine.  The vaccine is years away at least.  It could be decades away.

So going forward what kind of world are we willing to live in for the next five or more years?  Because that is what is what we are deciding.  Do you want a world where you don’t vacation away from you live? Are you cool with never going to a sporting event again?  Are you ok with peoples kids not be able to play team sports?  High schoolers never having a school dance? No traditional church services? No more Fair St. Louis? No school picnics?

Because that is the next five years of slowing the spread.  These are the things we need to ask ourselves.  The virus isn’t a few month thing or even an 18 month thing.  COVID 19 is our long term future.  We need to come to terms with that.

The 2nd paragraph here is what gets me.  Who is going to be the politician that chooses to say that the American way of life for the masses outweigh the lives of the bottom 5%? No one wants to represent that position.  Even bringing it up the possibility with my closest friends paints me as an absolute villain.

In some room, somewhere, someone in the federal government is weighing this decision.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, bleedtheblue said:

Lives have definitely been saved... The less people outside, gathering, and going about their daily business leads to less exposure to the mass populus. Less exposure equals less death. Unless there is something wrong with this logic...

The mass populace will all eventually be exposed to this virus. It spreads too easily and it isn’t going to go away.  If you would have died of COVID 19 last month,  but didn’t contract.... you are eventually going to contract and most likely still die from it.  
 

That is where the politicians and healthcare experts aren’t being honest with the people.  They are letting people believe that we can beat this virus if we just do this or that.  We aren’t beating this virus.  The only thing that will beat this virus is a vaccine and we are years or more away from a vaccine and not the 18 months they seem to be willing to let the public believe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, SLU_Nick said:

The 2nd paragraph here is what gets me.  Who is going to be the politician that chooses to say that the American way of life for the masses outweigh the lives of the bottom 5%? No one wants to represent that position.  Even bringing it up the possibility with my closest friends paints me as an absolute villain.

In some room, somewhere, someone in the federal government is weighing this decision.  

Well it is actually probably well less than 1%, but it still is a gruesome decision we will have to make if we ever stop playing political games.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, brianstl said:

The mass populace will all eventually be exposed to this virus. It spreads too easily and it isn’t going to go away.  If you would have died of COVID 19 last month,  but didn’t contract.... you are eventually going to contract and most likely still die from it.  
 

That is where the politicians and healthcare experts aren’t being honest with the people.  They are letting people believe that we can beat this virus if we just do this or that.  We aren’t beating this virus.  The only thing that will beat this virus is a vaccine and we are years or more away from a vaccine and not the 18 months they seem to be willing to let the public believe.

Managed care with adequate PPE and adequate supplies of targeted, effective meds will always result in lowered mortality. Florence Nightingale proved this during the Crimean War..and many, many others since her time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Sheltiedave said:

Managed care with adequate PPE and adequate supplies of targeted, effective meds will always result in lowered mortality. Florence Nightingale proved this during the Crimean War..and many, many others since her time.

The PPE ultimately isn’t going to make a difference.  If the healthcare worker doesn’t get the virus at the hospital they will ultimately get it at the store or when they forget to use a cloth opening the door at a bank.  
 

Hydroxychloroquine has shown promise to reduce the length of systems in severe but not life threatening cases.  What magic drug is on immediate horizon  for life threatening cases of COVID 19?

People need to realize this is a novel virus that spreads incredibly easy.  This isn’t the flu, it isn’t Ebola.  This is here, it isn’t seasonal and it isn’t going away.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, brianstl said:

The mass populace will all eventually be exposed to this virus. It spreads too easily and it isn’t going to go away.  If you would have died of COVID 19 last month,  but didn’t contract.... you are eventually going to contract and most likely still die from it.  
 

That is where the politicians and healthcare experts aren’t being honest with the people.  They are letting people believe that we can beat this virus if we just do this or that.  We aren’t beating this virus.  The only thing that will beat this virus is a vaccine and we are years or more away from a vaccine and not the 18 months they seem to be willing to let the public believe.

By not overwhelming our healthcare system, we have allowed ourselves to spread our resources more efficiently, thus treating more effectively. I dont agrea with "you are eventually going to contract and most likely still die from it". 

Where are you getting your information about years away from a vaccine and herd immunity won't be effective until 90-95% of the population contracts it? I am genuinely curious and would like to read this information. Can you link it for me to read too?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, brianstl said:

What was done needed to be done so the medical system wouldn’t be overwhelmed. That said the sad thing is no lives were saved.  Those deaths were just delayed.  This is a novel virus that spreads easily.  It is going to keep spreading and keep taking lives until their is a vaccine.  The vaccine is years away at least.  It could be decades away.

So going forward what kind of world are we willing to live in for the next five or more years?  Because that is what is what we are deciding.  Do you want a world where you don’t vacation away from you live? Are you cool with never going to a sporting event again?  Are you ok with peoples kids not be able to play team sports?  High schoolers never having a school dance? No traditional church services? No more Fair St. Louis? No school picnics?

Because that is the next five years of slowing the spread.  These are the things we need to ask ourselves.  The virus isn’t a few month thing or even an 18 month thing.  COVID 19 is our long term future.  We need to come to terms with that.

Not so fast, there is a long list of important issues that need to be determined before we start requiring testing on everyone. For example, the tests used to detect the virus. I do not really know how many different tests are there but I do know there are large hospitals and medical centers who have developed their own. There are tests that have been developed by large pharma companies, like Roche and Abbot. There is the test developed by the CDC, the test developed by WHO, a number of tests developed in China, a number developed in Europe, and the list goes on and on. How do you compare results? can the results be compared? The other important issue is: what is it that a (+) test really means. Does it mean that whoever tests (+) by whatever test is used has to be consider infected with the virus and capable of transmitting it, whether the person is symptomatic or not? Let's look into this because these are very serious issues.

Most of these tests used to detect Covid are PRC based (detection of small peptides or pieces of proteins, maybe also  nucleic acids, supposedly from the virus). How long do these pieces last in your body? Could you have residual peptides from prior infections? Does the appearance of some quantifiable amount of these peptides indicate automatically that you you are actively infected and capable of virus transmission whether or not you are symptomatic? How much of these peptides, or for that matter how much of a virus load do you need to have in circulation to be declared infected and capable of transmitting the virus? How many people can have these peptides without having enough of a virus load to become infected or able to transmit the  infection? These are ALL valid issues and NONE has been answered definitely as yet.

Even better, we have innumerable lab tests capable to determine there are particles of a substance in the blood or tissues of someone and these tests absolutely do not mean you have the actual disease. For example a (+) skin test for tuberculosis does NOT mean you have tuberculosis, it means you have been in contact with it, but not that you have active disease or can pass it.

So, for you all geniuses and experts in this board, take a stab at these issues and see what you can come up with. I'd be interested in knowing what you have to say about this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Old guy said:

 

Most of these tests used to detect Covid are PRC based (detection of small peptides or pieces of proteins, maybe also  nucleic acids, supposedly from the virus). How long do these pieces last in your body? Could you have residual peptides from prior infections? Does the appearance of some quantifiable amount of these peptides indicate automatically that you you are actively infected and capable of virus transmission whether or not you are symptomatic? How much of these peptides, or for that matter how much of a virus load do you need to have in circulation to be declared infected and capable of transmitting the virus? How many people can have these peptides without having enough of a virus load to become infected or able to transmit the  infection? These are ALL valid issues and NONE has been answered definitely as yet.

 

So you demean and insult the intelligence of multiple members of this board, and it turns out you don't even realize that PCR (not PRC) tests are targeted towards viral RNA, not peptides?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, GBL_Bills said:

So you demean and insult the intelligence of multiple members of this board, and it turns out you don't even realize that PCR (not PRC) tests are targeted towards viral RNA, not peptides?

OK genius, answer the questions is the detection of these fragments an absolute indication that the person is infected and capable of transmitting the disease? And how long do these fragments stay in circulation?

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, brianstl said:

The mass populace will all eventually be exposed to this virus. It spreads too easily and it isn’t going to go away.  If you would have died of COVID 19 last month,  but didn’t contract.... you are eventually going to contract and most likely still die from it.  
 

That is where the politicians and healthcare experts aren’t being honest with the people.  They are letting people believe that we can beat this virus if we just do this or that.  We aren’t beating this virus.  The only thing that will beat this virus is a vaccine and we are years or more away from a vaccine and not the 18 months they seem to be willing to let the public believe.

You don't drop this kind of world-shaking news on a scientifically ignorant population until you're absolutely sure.  1.5 months into a raging pandemic where very little testing has been done seems a little early to me to make such a definitive statement.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Old guy said:

OK genius, answer the questions is the detection of these fragments an absolute indication that the person is infected and capable of transmitting the disease? And how long do these fragments stay in circulation?

They swab the back of the throat to collect the samples, not the blood. So presence of viral RNA in the blood isn't even being addressed by the tests.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, GBL_Bills said:

They swab the back of the throat to collect the samples, not the blood. So presence of viral RNA in the blood isn't even being addressed by the tests.

 

Your fund of knowledge is absolutely bottomless, are you going to answer the questions genius? Is the detection of these fragments an absolute indication that the person is infected and capable of transmitting the disease? And how long do these fragments stay in circulation? Make it even better the presence of these fragments in any kind of body fluids, how is that to make this a broader topic?

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, bleedtheblue said:

By not overwhelming our healthcare system, we have allowed ourselves to spread our resources more efficiently, thus treating more effectively. I dont agrea with "you are eventually going to contract and most likely still die from it". 

Where are you getting your information about years away from a vaccine and herd immunity won't be effective until 90-95% of the population contracts it? I am genuinely curious and would like to read this information. Can you link it for me to read too?

 

You took a quote it of context.  I don’t believe for a second that most people will get it die.  Most people will get and never develop any systems.  Those that would have died if they got the virus last month will still most likely die when they get the virus next year.  Time doesn’t lower you susceptibility to death from the virus.  Age actually increases it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Old guy said:

Your fund of knowledge is absolutely bottomless, are you going to answer the questions genius? Is the detection of these fragments an absolute indication that the person is infected and capable of transmitting the disease? And how long do these fragments stay in circulation?

Well it's actually impossible for anyone to know, because the specificity and sensitivity of diagnostic tests are compared to a gold standard test. Since we don't have a gold standard test we only have the PCR results to go off of.

And, once again, the PCR test is a swab test, not a blood test, so no one's looking at viral RNA in the circulation.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Old guy said:

Not so fast, there is a long list of important issues that need to be determined before we start requiring testing on everyone. For example, the tests used to detect the virus. I do not really know how many different tests are there but I do know there are large hospitals and medical centers who have developed their own. There are tests that have been developed by large pharma companies, like Roche and Abbot. There is the test developed by the CDC, the test developed by WHO, a number of tests developed in China, a number developed in Europe, and the list goes on and on. How do you compare results? can the results be compared? The other important issue is: what is it that a (+) test really means. Does it mean that whoever tests (+) by whatever test is used has to be consider infected with the virus and capable of transmitting it, whether the person is symptomatic or not? Let's look into this because these are very serious issues.

Most of these tests used to detect Covid are PRC based (detection of small peptides or pieces of proteins, maybe also  nucleic acids, supposedly from the virus). How long do these pieces last in your body? Could you have residual peptides from prior infections? Does the appearance of some quantifiable amount of these peptides indicate automatically that you you are actively infected and capable of virus transmission whether or not you are symptomatic? How much of these peptides, or for that matter how much of a virus load do you need to have in circulation to be declared infected and capable of transmitting the virus? How many people can have these peptides without having enough of a virus load to become infected or able to transmit the  infection? These are ALL valid issues and NONE has been answered definitely as yet.

Even better, we have innumerable lab tests capable to determine there are particles of a substance in the blood or tissues of someone and these tests absolutely do not mean you have the actual disease. For example a (+) skin test for tuberculosis does NOT mean you have tuberculosis, it means you have been in contact with it, but not that you have active disease or can pass it.

So, for you all geniuses and experts in this board, take a stab at these issues and see what you can come up with. I'd be interested in knowing what you have to say about this.

I didn’t mention testing once in that post.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, GBL_Bills said:

They swab the back of the throat to collect the samples, not the blood. So presence of viral RNA in the blood isn't even being addressed by the tests.

 

There are blood test now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, brianstl said:

You took a quote it of context.  I don’t believe for a second that most people will get it die.  Most people will get and never develop any systems.  Those that would have died if they got the virus last month will still most likely die when they get the virus next year.  Time doesn’t lower you susceptibility to death from the virus.  Age actually increases it.

Time allows more resources to diagnose and treat the disease. Also I asked you to link the references so I can read them please. Thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, brianstl said:

There are blood test now.

Blood tests are testing for antibodies as a reflection of the development of an immune response against the virus. Testing for the virus itself is the PCR test from swabs.

 

Edit: Analogy: Swab PCR tests are like knocking on a door to see if anyone's home. Blood antibody tests are like looking to see if a house was built to see if anyone's ever lived on a plot of land.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...