Yesterday I ordered new socks and various vitamins and they were delivered today! I can't help but love Amazon. Maybe it's because Amazon has a big operation in the Minneapolis area so it doesn't have far to go. Also, my barber shop is open! I'm a 3 week haircut guy, and it's been three months. Gonna risk it and get this shag cut off tomorrow.

I've been mulling over a question recently, maybe someone has an answer. With all the talk of herd immunity, if you took a random sample of individuals, say 100, and completely saturate them with the virus, would some neither get sick nor exhibit anti-bodies? So a month later you have some dead and some recovered with anti-bodies; are there individuals that are neither? Obviously this would be unethical to undertake, but I wonder if some quarantined cruise ships may provide a basis for this.

I've assumed that EVERYONE is at risk with the virus, but if some people don't have the right XYZ receptor or whatever and simply cannot acquire or spread the disease, then the herd immunity equation could change significantly.

So far this is the only related article I've found:

https://www.immunopaedia.org.za/bre...rinsic-immunity-to-resist-covid-19-challenge/

The third very important factor is the issue of extensive HLA diversity of the Indian population with existence of several ‘novel alleles’ and ‘unique haplotypes’.

Quarantined cruise ship:

https://thorax.bmj.com/content/early/2020/05/27/thoraxjnl-2020-215091

We describe what we believe is the first instance of complete COVID-19 testing of all passengers and crew on an isolated cruise ship during the current COVID-19 pandemic. Of the 217 passengers and crew on board, 128 tested positive for COVID-19 on reverse transcription–PCR (59%). Of the COVID-19-positive patients, 19% (24) were symptomatic; 6.2% (8) required medical evacuation; 3.1% (4) were intubated and ventilated; and the mortality was 0.8% (1). The majority of COVID-19-positive patients were asymptomatic (81%, 104 patients). We conclude that the prevalence of COVID-19 on affected cruise ships is likely to be significantly underestimated, and strategies are needed to assess and monitor all passengers to prevent community transmission after disembarkation.

 

If I read that correctly, 41% never tested positive for the virus. As far as I can tell nothing in that report is related to antibody testing. It's hard to tell for sure, I'm not up on all the medical jargon. But it would be interesting to know what portion of the 41% had antibodies and therefore contracted the virus but testing was either false negative or they had cleared the infection prior to testing. If not all of the 41% fall into that category, do the others have some innate immunity, or were they fortunate to not be exposed. Perhaps subsequent investigation will give more details.

 

But it would be interesting to know what portion of the 41% had antibodies and therefore contracted the virus but testing was either false negative or they had cleared the infection prior to testing.

I bet you that the negatives were tested multiple times with multiple different tests.

If not all of the 41% fall into that category, do the others have some innate immunity, or were they fortunate to not be exposed.

I'm sure all would have been exposed. How could it be otherwise?

I'd like to see an age distribution of those who test negative. My SWAG: youngsters are both less likely to get infected (perhaps they can fight the virus by means other than antibodies, or the virus just doesn't take hold), and less likely to show symptoms when they are.

Edit: further, US data is showing that the average age of infected individuals is in the 50s, and the average age of those who die from the virus is in the 80s.

 

If I read that correctly, 41% never tested positive for the virus. As far as I can tell nothing in that report is related to antibody testing. It's hard to tell for sure, I'm not up on all the medical jargon. But it would be interesting to know what portion of the 41% had antibodies and therefore contracted the virus but testing was either false negative or they had cleared the infection prior to testing. If not all of the 41% fall into that category, do the others have some innate immunity, or were they fortunate to not be exposed. Perhaps subsequent investigation will give more details.

That would be interesting to know.

Of the 217 passengers and crew on board, 128 tested positive for COVID-19 (59%). These included all passengers who tested negative on the VivaDiag qSARS-CoV-IgM/IgG Rapid Test. There were 10 instances where two passengers sharing a cabin recorded positive and negative results.

You would think 10 couples, each in their own confined space for long periods of time would both be positive or negative unless there was an individual factor other than close contact.

 

You would think 10 couples, each in their own confined space for long periods of time would both be positive or negative unless there was an individual factor other than close contact.

Yes, if you are talking antibody tests post infection, but not necessarily with the virus test, right? One might have already achieved acquired immunity and eliminated the virus whilst the other was still infected. More interesting, again, would be a follow up on those couples with antibody tests. At least concerning my interest in the possibility of "innate immunity" where a person doesn't need and cannot produce anti-bodies, since for some reason the virus cannot infect them.

 

My wife finally made me leave the house today for the 90 miles jaunt for an appointment at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville Beach. Florida Highway Patrol is still stopping all traffic on I-95 entering Florida. The car ahead of us was from New York and was sent to a screening area. They asked us what state we were from and on telling them Georgia simply waved us through. When I arrived at the clinic I had to be masked to enter the Davis Building and was temp tested and asked several questions before being allowed to enter the lobby. Less than half the usual number of visitors. No Doctor's greeting handshake but a normal routine visit although everyone masked. Wife had to stop at Costco on the way home (think that was the entire reason for the visit) and had to be masked to enter. They had masks if you didn't bring one with you. Not much social distancing going on and as soon as they exited the building off came the masks. Elsewhere, nobody wearing masks, tables full in the open for business dine-in restaurants, no social distancing, pretty much everyone ignoring what should have been done. Lot's of NY cars around. I don't think I will do that again any time soon. Oh yeah, on the way back the traffic was backed up for 4-5 miles on I-95 southbound for the checkpoint. It was maybe only a 10-minute delay in the early morning.

 

Yes, if you are talking antibody tests post infection, but not necessarily with the virus test, right? One might have already achieved acquired immunity and eliminated the virus whilst the other was still infected. More interesting, again, would be a follow up on those couples with antibody tests. At least concerning my interest in the possibility of "innate immunity" where a person doesn't need and cannot produce anti-bodies, since for some reason the virus cannot infect them.

I don't think many would have the "innate immunity" to fight off a major virus load (from close contact like medical workers) without antibody help but for small amounts seen in most public activities they might be effectively immune. There is obviously some physiology in the human body that requires X amount of virus load (that reproduces in the body) to start actual symptoms and tests with known infected populations do show antibodies that should be effective in stopping reinfection.

https://www.zmescience.com/science/covid-19-antibodies-11052020/

There was a suspicion that only some people (those severely ill, or with healthy immune systems) might make antibodies. Instead, the study found, the level of antibody did not seem to differ by age, sex, or symptom severity. The antibody level did vary, but not according to any clear variable.

Contrary to popular belief though, developing antibodies is not always the same as having immunity — or at least, this hasn’t been proven in the case of SARS-CoV-2.

However, previous research (involving some of the same researchers as in this study) has shown a correlation between antibody levels and the body’s ability to disarm the virus. In addition, based on what we know from other pathogens, higher levels of antibodies makes it more likely that the body can fend off the virus with ease, at least for a period. But generalizing based on what we know from other pathogens — even other coronaviruses — is risky here.

https://osf.io/y3fxt/

Abstract
Growing evidence suggests that asymptomatic and mild SARS-CoV-2 infections, together comprising >95% of all infections, may be associated with lower antibody titers than severe infections. In addition, antibody levels peak a few weeks after infection and decay gradually. Yet, positive controls used for determining the sensitivity of serological assays are usually limited to samples from hospitalized patients with severe disease, leading to what is commonly known as spectrum bias in estimating seroprevalence in the general population. We performed simulations to quantify the bias potentially introduced by the choice of positive controls used. Our results suggest that assays with imperfect sensitivity will underestimate the true seroprevalence, but this can be corrected if assay sensitivity in the general population is known. If sensitivity is determined from validation sets skewed towards those with severe or recent infections and thus higher antibody levels, corrected prevalence will still underestimate the true prevalence. Correct interpretation of SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence studies requires quantifying the extent to which the sensitivity of assays being used varies with disease severity and over time. Optimization and validation of serological assays should involve samples from across the spectrum of severity and time since infection, and performance characteristics should be stratified by these factors.

 

Just found this. It seems like excellent advice. But whenever someone puts numbers on things, I'd very much like to know how they arrived at such results... unfortunately this is not the case ... but it's very illustrative, nevertheless.

​

 

Please cite the source and the data. Is that just another, wrong model?

Oh, does that model include people who wear the mask below their nose, who wear only a bandanna, or who remove the mask on leaving the store then re-apply, consequently with their snot all over their hands, as they shop?

 

Just found this. It seems like excellent advice. But whenever someone puts numbers on things, I'd very much like to know how they arrived at such results... unfortunately this is not the case ... but it's very illustrative, nevertheless.

View attachment 208856​

The first case (70%) just doesn't seem plausible. Certainly not if the mask is a typical N95 type. None of the nurses or doctors at our local MICU have gotten sick around Covid-19 patients. Granted, they use multiple protective behaviors but 70%? Maybe 7%. Now, the flimsy paper masks, definitely higher. I only wear N95 and they are getting pretty disgusting.

 

Only problem is the only ones wearing N95 are medical workers. Most are wearing a useless piece of crap, if anything at all...

 

Please cite the source and the data. Is that just another, wrong model?

Oh, does that model include people who wear the mask below their nose, who wear only a bandanna, or who remove the mask on leaving the store then re-apply, consequently with their snot all over their hands, as they shop?

You're absolutely right, John. Hard numbers should be accompanied by hard facts, and those by thorough reasoning. That's why I my first statement was a disclaimer (of sorts)

Nevertheless, I found it posted in the facebook page of a lung specialty clinic in Houston ... so it's not entirely just a bunch of air.

 

On the other hand, here's what I think:

• The main way that CV19 enters the body is through the nostrils, mouth and eyes. That is, through the body's wet membranes.
• The use of a mask helps the user avoid touching his face, and it's also a constant reminder of that.
• Once one remembers not to touch one's face (because of the presence of the mask), one could associate with another reminder of washing one's hands frequently. It's like wearing a piece of string tied around one's figer of sorts.
• Also, the droplets blown when one breathes or coughs are more or less contained by a mask.

All in all, it should be helpful to use a mask. The big Q is, how helpful? And I have yet to find a trustworthy study of this particular subject.

 

Initially it seemed like spread was from coughing, sneezing, and hand contact. I've heard that speaking may be a much bigger culprit. The s's, p's, and f's and so forth entail ejecting spit laden droplets into the air, and with a fair amount of velocity. Probably another reason to wear masks, but also a good excuse to tell someone to STFU.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-world-health-organization-hydroxychloroquine

The World Health Organization and a number of national governments have changed their Covid-19 policies and treatments on the basis of flawed data from a little-known US healthcare analytics company, also calling into question the integrity of key studies published in some of the world’s most prestigious medical journals.
...
Data it claims to have legitimately obtained from more than a thousand hospitals worldwide formed the basis of scientific articles that have led to changes in Covid-19 treatment policies in Latin American countries. It was also behind a decision by the WHO and research institutes around the world to halt trials of the controversial drug hydroxychloroquine. On Wednesday, the WHO announced those trials would now resume.
...
The Guardian’s investigation has found:

• A search of publicly available material suggests several of Surgisphere’s employees have little or no data or scientific background. An employee listed as a science editor appears to be a science fiction author and fantasy artist. Another employee listed as a marketing executive is an adult model and events hostess.

...
At a press conference on Wednesday, the WHO announced it would resume its global trial of hydroxychloroquine, after its data safety monitoring committee found there was no increased risk of death for Covid patients taking it.

If this is valid, WOW!

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-world-health-organization-hydroxychloroquine


If this is valid, WOW!

It has become so hard nowadays to distinguish truth from baloney... unbelievable that in the so called "age of information" not only the spread of falsehoods but also the choice of willful ignorance have become so prevalent.

 

The data in that study, and in at least one preprint on a second treatment, were provided by an Illinois firm called Surgisphere. Allegedly the data represents the treatment and health outcomes of 96,032 patients from 671 hospitals in six continents. However, there is simply no plausible way I can think of that the data are real.

I’ll say that again - I believe with very high probability the data behind that high profile, high consequence Lancet study are completely fabricated.

If Surgisphere can name the 671 participating hospitals or otherwise prove that the data is real I will retract that statement, delete this post or write whatever humbling apology they desire. But I think there’s nearly zero chance of that happening.

http://freerangestats.info/blog/2020/05/30/implausible-health-data-firm

A health data firm making extraordinary claims about its data

 

On 22 May the Lancet published a blockbuster peer-reviewed study which found the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine, which has been promoted by [redacted], was associated with a higher mortality rate in Covid-19 patients and increased heart problems.

As usual: just wait a few weeks and it turns out he was right.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-world-health-organization-hydroxychloroquine



If this is valid, WOW!

Hydroxychloroquine is cheap and patent-free. Novel vaccines are not.



https://thevaccinereaction.org/2017/10/gates-foundation-invests-in-for-profit-ventures/

More recently, in 2015, the Gates Foundation invested $52 million in biotechnology company CureVac of Tübingen, Germany, taking a four percent equity stake in the German firm. That was a particularly interesting business move.

CureVac is a pioneer in the development of mRNA (messenger Ribonucleic Acid) vaccine technology. According to a study in RNA Biology journal, the technology is viewed as a “game changer” in the development and manufacture of vaccines.

The experimental mRNA vaccines are being designed to mimic infection differently from traditional vaccines. Instead of introducing an antigen into the body to stimulate an immune response, mRNA vaccines contain the “genetic information to produce the antigen”—they would provide “instructions to the body to produce the antigen itself.”

This is a much simpler process than the culture of virus in eggs. Egg cultures, the more common way of producing vaccines, can provoke allergic reactions; the in vitro production of RNA avoids this possibility. Producing RNA vaccines is also less expensive than producing the full antigen protein. Another advantage is that the production of RNA-based vaccines is more rapid compared to production of traditional vaccines. This rapid production could be a major advantage in face of sudden pandemics. Moreover, RNA-based vaccines may be effective against pandemics because they also provide more flexibility to prevent or treat pathogens that are rapidly evolving.

The Gates Foundation seems to understand the revolutionary potential of mRNA vaccine technology, as does probably every player in the vaccine manufacturing industry. Earlier this year, Sanofi Pasteur’s vice-president for global research Nicholas Jackson said of mRNA technology:

"It’s one of those things that you can’t afford to not be involved in, because if it is the next platform it is a complete game changer. It’s going to be like PCR (Polymerase chain reaction) and change molecular biology. That’s the reason why there has been a frenzy of hundreds of millions invested in messenger RNA technology…"

More succinctly:

https://pgibertie.com/page/1/

(Translated from French)

Because the authors of this study would be financially concerned by the medical benefits of a treatment or a vaccine against Covid-19. As proof, Mandeep R. Mehra, in the “Declaration of interests” section of the study, declares having personally received fees from the companies Abbott, Medtronic, Janssen, Mesoblast, Portola, Bayer, Baim Institute for Clinical Research, NupulseCV, FineHeart, Leviticus, Roivant, and Triple Gene. That is to say, says health anthropologist Jean-Dominique Michel on his blog, private companies with an interest in discrediting a treatment which, being practically free and composed of molecules fallen into the public domain, harms their business prospects.

And to drive the point home by giving the list of financiers of the Harvard Medical School, from which the author of the study came: the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Mark Zuckerberg, Lakshmi N. Mittal and the Rockefeller foundation, all involved in vaccination projects against Covid 19. Note that this Sunday, May 24, the former Minister of Health Philippe Douste-Blazy went in the same direction on BFMTV, citing the former editor-in-chief of The Lancet regretting that "today, there are many suspicions about medical studies and their links with the labs".

 

You're absolutely right, John. Hard numbers should be accompanied by hard facts, and those by thorough reasoning. That's why I my first statement was a disclaimer (of sorts)

Nevertheless, I found it posted in the facebook page of a lung specialty clinic in Houston ... so it's not entirely just a bunch of air.

It's not a randomized study for obvious reasons, it's just from observations.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext