Jump to content

SLU & NCAA Corona Virus Discussion


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, 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? Make it even better the presence of these fragments in any kind of body fluids, how is that to make this a broader topic?

Hey OG I may have missed this in this thread or others, but what kind of MD are/were you? This is a serious question not sarcasm or anything. 

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

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

19 minutes ago, 3star_recruit said:

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.

I think the population is more intelligent and definitely far more resilient than you give them credit for.  The longer leaders don’t level with the public, the more the public will realize they are hiding something from them.  Then the public will be left to their imagination to figure out what is being hidden.

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

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.

Actually on NPR this morning I am almost sure they mentioned something about a new blood test an airline has started using to actually test for the presence of the virus and not antibodies.  It is supposedly the fastest test now available.  Maybe I miss heard.

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

Actually on NPR this morning I am almost sure they mentioned something about a new blood test an airline has started using to actually test for the presence of the virus and not antibodies.  It is supposedly the fastest test now available.  Maybe I miss heard.

Its the fastest because it's on an airplane! Sorry just had a kid and caught the dad joke virus.

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

Actually on NPR this morning I am almost sure they mentioned something about a new blood test an airline has started using to actually test for the presence of the virus and not antibodies.  It is supposedly the fastest test now available.  Maybe I miss heard.

I didn't hear that. Good to know. I'll try to find the story.

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

I think the population is more intelligent and definitely far more resilient than you give them credit for.  The longer leaders don’t level with the public, the more the public will realize they are hiding something from them.  Then the public will be left to their imagination to figure out what is being hidden.

You seem to be suggesting there's some overwhelming consensus in the epidemiology community about what the future will look like in the wake of COVID-19.  Like bleedtheblue, I would love to know what literature you've been reading.

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

Actually on NPR this morning I am almost sure they mentioned something about a new blood test an airline has started using to actually test for the presence of the virus and not antibodies.  It is supposedly the fastest test now available.  Maybe I miss heard.

https://nypost.com/2020/04/16/emirates-passengers-undergo-coronavirus-blood-tests-before-flight/

Looks like it's still an antibody test. But, regardless, advances in rapid testing are great. And antibody information is valuable as well, because, hopefully, people with antibodies would be immune from catching it again.

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

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.

James Holden disapproves of this opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, almaman said:

did he ever hear of prohibition

Oh, I heard of it and sadly individuals  like you who can’t exist without the ability to be intoxicated  forced its repeal... it’s amazing how many on here boast about being impaired.... but back to your point.. yes, prohibition was a failed policy, but what you don’t understand is that this sabotaging of the American economy is also doomed for failure....

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

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.

 

Good, the genius came up with an answer: He does not know if a positive test means that a person actually has the disease and can transmit it. Great! You get a gold star for the correct answer. NO ONE KNOWS, PERIOD. TO REQUIRE TESTING BEFORE YOU ARE ALLOWED TO DO OR NOT TO DO ANY ACTIVITY AT ALL IS MEANINGLESS.

Now that you seem to have passed this question, answer this other one with your immense fund of knowledge: IS IT WORTHWHILE TO BANKRUPT MILLIONS OF FAMILIES AND BUSINESSES BECAUSE OF A TEST THAT MAY BE MEANINGLESS AND THAT IN A SMALL NUMBER OF CASES MAY RESULT IN DISEASE AND DEATH?

I used capital letters to try and help any lack of understanding of the meaning of this question. Go ahead genius, what is your answer?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question on vaccines. Why is it going to take 12-18 months? Or at least why does it have to take 12 months at all. From what I have read, we have 70 different vaccine options in development. I would imagine that we could get a statistically significant number of volunteers to take each of these vaccines. Assuming you could get individuals brave enough to test the vaccine and then be exposed. It is undeniable that people would die with this approach, but if it saves lives overall, wouldn’t the ends justify the means? My fear is that we are following stages and protocols because that is the law, not because it is the fastest and best means to save lives in this situation.

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

Good, the genius came up with an answer: He does not know if a positive test means that a person actually has the disease and can transmit it. Great! You get a gold star for the correct answer. NO ONE KNOWS, PERIOD. TO REQUIRE TESTING BEFORE YOU ARE ALLOWED TO DO OR NOT TO DO ANY ACTIVITY AT ALL IS MEANINGLESS.

Now that you seem to have passed this question, answer this other one with your immense fund of knowledge: IS IT WORTHWHILE TO BANKRUPT MILLIONS OF FAMILIES AND BUSINESSES BECAUSE OF A TEST THAT MAY BE MEANINGLESS AND THAT IN A SMALL NUMBER OF CASES MAY RESULT IN DISEASE AND DEATH?

I used capital letters to try and help any lack of understanding of the meaning of this question. Go ahead genius, what is your answer?

Hey Troll Guy, I never said you weren't asking good questions.

I just take umbrage at you acting as the Official Board Arbiter of all medical/scientific knowledge and insulting the intelligence of valuable contributors to the board, while seeming to not know how PCR tests work.

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

Hey OG I may have missed this in this thread or others, but what kind of MD are/were you? This is a serious question not sarcasm or anything. 

Internist but as I have mentioned I worked at corporate level estimating life expectancies, disability and patterns of death.

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

Hey Troll Guy, I never said you weren't asking good questions.

I just take umbrage at you acting as the Official Board Arbiter of all medical/scientific knowledge and insulting the intelligence of valuable contributors to the board, while seeming to not know how PCR tests work.

People like you have to be educated one way or the other. You obviously do not know or fail to understand that a virus that stays in the saliva and mucus of the throat does not cause any kind of infection and cannot kill anyone. It needs to penetrate inside the body, invade the body to make it easy for you to understand. To kill, the bug must severely damage the lung tissues, something it cannot do without entering the body and getting carried by the blood to invade lung tissue.

The depth of your knowledge is enormous, as you have demonstrated repeatedly. Now, answer the question how many millions of families and businesses do you wish to bankrupt because of this test? How many?

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

https://nypost.com/2020/04/16/emirates-passengers-undergo-coronavirus-blood-tests-before-flight/

Looks like it's still an antibody test. But, regardless, advances in rapid testing are great. And antibody information is valuable as well, because, hopefully, people with antibodies would be immune from catching it again.

It would also be super helpful to see exactly what percentage of the population has acquired Covid-19, remained completely asymptomatic, and already developed an immunity. Especially if we're talking about gradually getting people back to work over time. 

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

People like you have to be educated one way or the other. You obviously do not know or fail to understand that a virus that stays in the saliva and mucus of the throat does not cause any kind of infection and cannot kill anyone. It needs to penetrate inside the body, invade the body to make it easy for you to understand. To kill, the bug must severely damage the lung tissues, something it cannot do without entering the body and getting carried by the blood to invade lung tissue.

The depth of your knowledge is enormous, as you have demonstrated repeatedly. Now, answer the question how many millions of families and businesses do you wish to bankrupt because of this test? How many?

Well, you seem to have missed my point, while at the same time doing a great job of proving it.

Coronavirus can enter the body directly through the airways themselves, through the ACE2 receptors, which are highly expressed on the apical surface of airway epithelial cells. Meaning, that yes, virus in the upper respiratory system can enter the body and cause infection.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2012-7

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature02145

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1287568/

 

If you’re going to dismiss and demean other board contributors, you better be batting a thousand 

 

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

Well, you seem to have missed my point, while at the same time doing a great job of proving it.

Coronavirus can enter the body directly through the airways themselves, through the ACE2 receptors, which are highly expressed on the apical surface of airway epithelial cells. Meaning, that yes, virus in the upper respiratory system can enter the body and cause infection.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2012-7

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature02145

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1287568/

 

If you’re going to dismiss and demean other board contributors, you better be batting a thousand 

 

And how does it get to the saliva genius? you have not answered the question how many million families and businesses are you willing to bankrupt for a meaningless test?

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

I have a question on vaccines. Why is it going to take 12-18 months? Or at least why does it have to take 12 months at all. From what I have read, we have 70 different vaccine options in development. I would imagine that we could get a statistically significant number of volunteers to take each of these vaccines. Assuming you could get individuals brave enough to test the vaccine and then be exposed. It is undeniable that people would die with this approach, but if it saves lives overall, wouldn’t the ends justify the means? My fear is that we are following stages and protocols because that is the law, not because it is the fastest and best means to save lives in this situation.

The FDA does have protocols that will allow a fast track approval so if a vaccine is developed it does not have to go through the entire standard approval process.  The reason it takes 12-18 months from start is that you have to be pretty damn sure that it works and does not cause more problems.  Think about what a vaccine does - it introduces a foreign virus to a healthy person - it is typically a dead virus but none-the-less it is a virus - so you better be sure that it works the way you want and the only way to do that is to introduce it to an acceptable number of human subjects.  It takes time to get to this point and to monitor what happens to them over a reasonable timeframe.

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

And how does it get to the saliva genius? you have not answered the question how many million families and businesses are you willing to bankrupt for a meaningless test?

Once again, I am not arguing for or against any particular economic/epidemiological strategy with you here. 

I’m pointing out that if you’re going to insult the intelligence of other board members and act as the gatekeeper for biomedical discussion, you better not ever get anything wrong. 

Which you‘ve now done three times today. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, cheeseman said:

The FDA does have protocols that will allow a fast track approval so if a vaccine is developed it does not have to go through the entire standard approval process.  The reason it takes 12-18 months from start is that you have to be pretty damn sure that it works and does not cause more problems.  Think about what a vaccine does - it introduces a foreign virus to a healthy person - it is typically a dead virus but none-the-less it is a virus - so you better be sure that it works the way you want and the only way to do that is to introduce it to an acceptable number of human subjects.  It takes time to get to this point and to monitor what happens to them over a reasonable timeframe.

I think this is what bothers me. The approach is taken with the idea of limiting any risk to human life. Life is being lost everyday without a vaccine. I doubt, based on at least some experience with watching the development of vaccines and clinical trials from a legal perspective, that anyone is taking risks to expedite the development of the vaccine. Ultimately, it would be nice if the president granted immunity to anyone developing the vaccines and allowed them to speed things up. 

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

×
×
  • Create New...