COVID-19

[Freegrass]

What if we turn that around? Put all the young people together in a festival that will last for at least 3 weeks....

My son came up with the same idea in April

So why didn't we do this in summer? 

[SteveMDFP]

What if we turn that around? Put all the young people together in a festival that will last for at least 3 weeks....

My son came up with the same idea in April

So why didn't we do this in summer? 

And I suggested the same kind of thing on this thread many weeks ago.

The US, at least, is now moving in that direction.  In many cases where colleges start in-person, but an outbreak starts, they're now cancelling in-person classes, but *not* sending students home.  Fauci recommended this.  So the kids stay in dorms, they face consequences approximately equivalent to seasonal flu, and the professors stay home.

Society then nets a modest population of at least partially immune young people whom nobody needs to worry about giving or getting the virus.  They can be plasma donors, and/or work with vulnerable populations. 

[sailor]

I don't post much or anything here, but I think this should be big news (maybe it has been posted), to say the least for US persons. Many thousands of lives would have been saved if Trump had not stopped mask program in APRIL !!! This should define the outcome of the campaign and Biden should exploit it to its fullest.

[harpy]

What if we turn that around? Put all the young people together in a festival that will last for at least 3 weeks....

My son came up with the same idea in April

So why didn't we do this in summer? 

And I suggested the same kind of thing on this thread many weeks ago.

The US, at least, is now moving in that direction.  In many cases where colleges start in-person, but an outbreak starts, they're now cancelling in-person classes, but *not* sending students home.  Fauci recommended this.  So the kids stay in dorms, they face consequences approximately equivalent to seasonal flu, and the professors stay home.

Society then nets a modest population of at least partially immune young people whom nobody needs to worry about giving or getting the virus.  They can be plasma donors, and/or work with vulnerable populations.

That strategy would be a complete failure, as re-infection is now confirmed.


Link to PDF :
https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa1275/5897019

Epidemiological, clinical, serological and genomic analyses confirmed that the patient had re-infection instead of persistent viral shedding from first infection.... The confirmation of re-infection has several important implications. First, it is unlikely that herd immunity can eliminate SARS-CoV-2, although it is possible that subsequent infections may be milder than the first infection as for this patient. COVID-19 will likely continue to circulate in the human population as in the case of other human coronaviruses. ....Second, vaccines may not be able to provide lifelong protection against COVID-19.

[dnem]

One or two cases of true re-infection in no ways proves that re-infection will be common enough to change the course of the pandemic. Obviously, it is possible that it might, but I would say there is not much evidence to say that it will be a common occurrence.

[harpy]

What COVID-19 Reinfection Means for Vaccines


https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-covid-19-reinfection-means-for-vaccines/

If and when reinfections with COVID-19 become the norm, the majority of people will weather the virus as they would any other cold. You get it, and after a certain period of time your body forgets it, leaving you vulnerable to its return. The key difference is that seasonal cold-causing viruses rarely cause lethal disease, while COVID-19 does at rates of 1–5 percent, depending on the health status of those it affects.

The first question is how long any immunity, whether natural or vaccine-mediated, will last. The second and more difficult question is whether a strong immune response can, in some, facilitate future infections, and if reinfection does occur, whether it might increase, rather than decrease, the amount of virus in the body. The third and final question concerns the mechanisms by which coronaviruses reestablish infection in a person who has already been infected once before. One possibility is that they inactivate our memory cells—the equivalent of disconnecting the alarm. This is what the measles virus does upon first infection: target and kill memory B cells specifically. For now, whether this is the case for coronaviruses is unknown.

If SARS-CoV-2 doesn’t wipe out memory response upon reinfection, there is more or less a clear path forward for vaccine development. Over time, we may have to create new generations of vaccines because of antigenic drift, as we do with the flu. Aside from the fact that we may have to revaccinate people amid fading immunity, barring any other complications a vaccine will be able to protect us from reinfection. If SARS-CoV-2 it does tamper with our immune memory, however, we might be in trouble.

[Richard Rathbone]

Its getting to "guess the R" time of the week. 1.4-1.8 is my guess.

I got that wrong. 1.2-1.5 is today's official pronouncement.

Partly they've held the upper end of the daily growth rate to 8% when I thought it should be 10% and would be 9%, but I also bungled the conversion to R by nudging up my value from my linearised rule of thumb when I should have been nudging it down.

A couple of the recent Life Scientific podcasts have interviewees that may be of interest.
Prof Sarah Gilbert, whose research on how to speed up vaccine development is a lot of the reason AstraZeneca have been able to move as fast as they have. I think the interview is pretty good on this. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000mj18
Prof Neil Ferguson, the modeller that is a lot better at getting publicity for himself than he is at modelling, and who in my reckoning is probably the person most responsible for the bungled scientific advice in the 2-3 weeks immediately before the UK lock down in March.  https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000mt0h

Search wherever you get podcasts if outside the UK, BBC sounds links may be UK restricted.

[gandul]

Madrid’s 6 mill to be confined again really soon, anytime now... probably forced by the central government.

I am not sure at all this is a good measure at this stage. Probably it is, in order to protect the vulnerable but I am so pissed at our regional government. Total incompetence. We got here because of total unpreparedness for the second F@@king time.

[vox_mundi]

The Lancet: First nationally representative estimate of COVID-19 seroprevalence in the U.S. suggests few in the population developed antibodies in the first wave
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-09/tl-pss_1092420.php

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32009-2/fulltext

Nation-wide cross-sectional analysis of U.S. patients receiving dialysis finds fewer than 10% of people had COVID-19 antibodies by July 2020, and fewer than 10% of those with antibodies had been diagnosed by antigen or PCR testing. *

Researchers say this representative population is ideal for studying the general spread of COVID-19 in the U.S. because these patients undergo monthly, routine blood draws and represent other similar COVID-19 risk factors such as age, non-white race, and poverty. * COVID-19 control efforts should prioritize minorities and people living in densely populated areas to prevent general community spread.

The first cross-sectional, nation-wide analysis of more than 28,000 patients on dialysis in the U.S. found that fewer than 10% of U.S. adults had COVID-19 antibodies as of July 2020 and fewer than 10% were diagnosed. Published today in The Lancet, the new study also shows higher COVID-19 infection rates among ethnic minorities and people living in lower-income, high density, urban areas - underling the need for COVID-19 public health efforts that prioritize these populations in order to prevent general community spread.

Researchers from Stanford University explain that patients on dialysis represent an important population to study general COVID-19 seroprevalence. These patients already undergo routine, monthly laboratory studies and represent similar risk factors to contracting COVID-19 as the general population, including age, non-white race, and poverty. Unlike community-based surveys, where a select group may show up for or agree to be tested and require a significant on-the-ground effort to launch, patients on dialysis are amenable to random sampling as part of their routine care.

The study follows previous findings from recent seroprevalence studies of highly affected countries and regions (e.g. Wuhan, China, and Spain), which have shown that despite the intense strain on resources and unprecedented excess mortality, rates of seroprevalence at the population level remain low. Other seroprevalence studies of the U.S. population have been restricted to regional hotspots, such as New York City.

... Findings showed that, compared to the majority non-Hispanic white population, people living in predominantly Black and Hispanic neighborhoods experienced a two- to four-times higher likelihood of COVID-19 infection (rates of COVID-19 infection were 11.3% to 16.3% in Black and Hispanic neighborhoods, compared to 4.8% in the majority non-Hispanic white population) while poorer areas experienced a two-times higher likelihood, and the most densely populated areas showed a 10-times higher likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity.

In the study, researchers tested the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in a randomly selected representative sample of 28,503 patients to provide a nationwide estimate of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 during the first wave of the pandemic.  ... Accounting for the externally validated test sensitivity, seroprevalence ranged from 8.2% to 9.4% in the sampled population. Researchers estimated the SARS-CoV-2 standardized seroprevalence in the U.S. population to be approximately 9.3%. The authors also found significant regional variation from less than 5% in the western United States to greater than 25% in the northeast.

"This research clearly confirms that despite high rates of COVID-19 in the United States, the number of people with antibodies is still low and we haven't come close to achieving herd immunity. Until an effective vaccine is approved, we need to make sure our more vulnerable populations are reached with prevention measures," said study author Julie Parsonnet, MD, a Professor of Medicine at Stanford University.

---------------------------------------

A 'Climate Anomaly' Worsened World War I and the 1918 Flu Pandemic, New Research Suggests
https://gizmodo.com/a-climate-anomaly-worsened-world-war-i-and-the-1918-flu-1845182559

[El Cid]

The Lancet: First nationally representative estimate of COVID-19 seroprevalence in the U.S. suggests few in the population developed antibodies in the first wave Researchers estimated the SARS-CoV-2 standardized seroprevalence in the U.S. population to be approximately 9.3%. [/B]T

If dialysis-patients are truly representative (I am not sure of that) then that means that 9,3% of the US population has been infected. That is 0,093*328 million = 30,5 million people. Given that the USA has 200 000 dead, that would be cca 0,66% mortality (IFR). As the median age in the USA is 38 years, that result is quite similar to previous studies. Median age is usually above 40 in Europe, so an IFR of close to but likely under 1% should be true here.

[oren]

Interesting analysis. But is the 200,000 figure accurate? IIRC excess mortality is higher than the confirmed Covid deaths figure, which would not be surprising given the large discrepancy between seroprevalence and officially diagnosed infections.

[bbr2315]

The Lancet: First nationally representative estimate of COVID-19 seroprevalence in the U.S. suggests few in the population developed antibodies in the first wave Researchers estimated the SARS-CoV-2 standardized seroprevalence in the U.S. population to be approximately 9.3%. [/B]T

If dialysis-patients are truly representative (I am not sure of that) then that means that 9,3% of the US population has been infected. That is 0,093*328 million = 30,5 million people. Given that the USA has 200 000 dead, that would be cca 0,66% mortality (IFR). As the median age in the USA is 38 years, that result is quite similar to previous studies. Median age is usually above 40 in Europe, so an IFR of close to but likely under 1% should be true here.

Their data is "as-of" July, once again vox_mundi is posting misleading information.

[vox_mundi]

^ And once again bbr is blind to facts, and lies instead, the Lancet article was published on September 25, 2020.

Bbr, are you just stupid or are you a liar and a troll. You are pure noise and provide nothing to this forum.

[glennbuck]

 https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18749716.coronavirus-death-twice-likely-patients-flu-covid/?ref=rss

PATIENTS who contract flu in addition to the coronavirus which causes Covid-19 are more than twice as likely to die, according to new research.

Scotland's interim deputy chief medical officer, Dr Nicola Steedman, said it was clear that catching both infections at once is "extremely serious".

[dnem]

Interesting analysis. But is the 200,000 figure accurate? IIRC excess mortality is higher than the confirmed Covid deaths figure, which would not be surprising given the large discrepancy between seroprevalence and officially diagnosed infections.

Although excess mortality figures will include knock-on effects like higher mortality caused by people not seeking care or being unable to obtain care for other conditions and increased "deaths of despair" (as well as likely fewer deaths due to accidents).  Worldometers had US COVID deaths at around 130k at the start, and 155k at the end, of July, indicating an IFR of around 0.5%

[Tom_Mazanec]

vox_mundi, your quote of the Lancet articles does say “July 2020” as the time of the data, even if the date of the publication is September 25.

[vox_mundi]

And how long does it take to collect & review data, write the article, have it peer-review, and get  it published in Lancet? What is the misleading data exactly, Tom?

[kassy]

There is always this unfortunate lag, worse with climate science publications too. Fail to see the misleading in there.

[Shared Humanity]

Their data is "as-of" July, once again vox_mundi is posting misleading information.

I could, of course, be mistaken but it would appear to be a link to some fairly exacting research.

Let's see what we might learn from it.

[Jeju-islander]

-
The topic that most interests me most is why some countries got their response to Covid-19 so wrong, compared to many other countries that did quite well.

In particular the United States and the United Kingdom are the stand-out failures.
As of November 2019 in the Global Health Security Index these 2 countries were ranked #1 and #2 as the most prepared.

 Looking at 2019 GHS Index Country Profile for United States

The quote below is from this analysis published in November 2019
Bold type and color added for emphasis.

3.1.1a) Does the country have a national public health emergency response plan in place which addresses planning for multiple communicable diseases with epidemic or pandemic potential?
Score and/or Justification:
The US has a national public health emergency response plan which addresses planning for multiple communicable diseases with pandemic potential. Public health emergency planning exists in the context of overall disaster planning, set out in the National Preparedness System (NPS). The National Response Framework (NRF), last updated 2016, defines US doctrine for managing any type of disaster or emergency. The NRF consists of a base document and Emergency Support Function (ESF) Annexes. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) leads on ESF #8 - Public Health and Medical Services, with responsibility delegated to the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR).[1] The ASPR was created under the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act (PAHPA) 2006. The Act called for the establishment of a quadrennial National Health Security Strategy (NHSS).[2] The ASPR has published an NHSS for 2019-2022 and associated implementation plan. These plan to improve interoperability among stakeholders (public and private, federal and state, and public health, disaster response and military) and raise capacity to quickly and effectively detect disease outbreaks and biological threats. They address newly emerging and re-emerging diseases such as pandemic influenza, Ebola virus, and Zika virus, the potential for these diseases to be animal-related, and related threats such as antimicrobial resistance and biological attacks. They call to modernize key areas such as cybersecurity, agile logistics, command and control, surveillance, laboratory testing and diagnostics, and decontamination capabilities; and address availability and dissemination of medical countermeasures. The NHSS and implementation plan are broad, and guide the development of more specific plans related to particular diseases by federal agencies and state, local, tribal, and territorial (SLTT) partners.[3,4] According to the 2016 Joint External Evaluation (JEE) of the IHR Core Capacities of the United States, the US’ preparedness and response system was “outstanding”.[5] 

How could it go so wrong?

[Shared Humanity]

How could it go so wrong?

Boris and Hair Furor.

Yet another one from the series of "Easy Answers to Easy Questions".

[El Cid]

Interesting analysis. But is the 200,000 figure accurate? IIRC excess mortality is higher than the confirmed Covid deaths figure, which would not be surprising given the large discrepancy between seroprevalence and officially diagnosed infections.

Although excess mortality figures will include knock-on effects like higher mortality caused by people not seeking care or being unable to obtain care for other conditions and increased "deaths of despair" (as well as likely fewer deaths due to accidents).  Worldometers had US COVID deaths at around 130k at the start, and 155k at the end, of July, indicating an IFR of around 0.5%

You might be right. However, as we know it takes 21 days on average to die of COVID, so it is not obvious whether we should use July or August data and whether we should use excess mortality or official reported deathcounts. Anyway I can accept 0,5% as well. That would probably be the lower bound of real IFR for the USA.

[Tom_Mazanec]

And how long does it take to collect & review data, write the article, have it peer-review, and get  it published in Lancet? What is the misleading data exactly, Tom?

bbr2315 said:

Their data is "as-of" July, once again vox_mundi is posting misleading information.

and you replied:

And once again bbr is blind to facts, and lies instead, the Lancet article was published on September 25, 2020.

Bbr, are you just stupid or are you a liar and a troll. You are pure noise and provide nothing to this forum.

I am confused as to why the fact that it takes a few months from data collection to publication is igniting this flame war between you two.

[SteveMDFP]

I am confused as to why the fact that it takes a few months from data collection to publication is igniting this flame war between you two.

BBR has repeatedly attacked Vox for posting relevant news items.  This was just the latest example of many.  He's attacked others here, too.  Neven would have put him back on moderation or banned him by now.  The good old days.

[Tom_Mazanec]

OK.
I disbelieve his "C-19 is artificial" meme, but he has a right to advocate it here imho (for example).  Even when I thought it was a possibility I thought it unlikely. His playing the Nazi card also got him some flack from me and others. But I don't know if Neven would have banned him. Except for denialism, Neven didn't seem to ban many people. He let the ones who were gunning for me off scott free, for example. And I would have liked him to allow denialism here to be debated. I invited the people over at the Furry Forum I attend to come here and debate you (coincidently it was about when Klondike Kat was banned). But when KK was banned I retracted the invitation.

[vox_mundi]

No Tom!

I asked YOU what was the misleading data, exactly, in the Lancet article. Not how bbr misrepresented it.

Tell us, where are the errors in that article?

[Richard Rathbone]

How could it go so wrong?

Boris and Hair Furor.

Yet another one from the "Easy Answers to Easy Questions" series.

Brexit and its not flu.
The disaster planners hadn't thought about anything but Brexit for years, so assessments of the UK preparedness for anything but Brexit were years out of date, and the epidemiologists didn't spot it was significantly deadlier and spread a lot faster than flu until just before lockdown. It was under a week from the "Oh Shit" moment in a scientific advisory modelling subcommittee to lockdown. There's been a lot of convenient memory editting since, but the minutes and the press conference videos say they were following the plan for a bad flu year until around 20th March.

There's racist complacency too.  Foreigners might drop like flies but thats because they are inferior to us rather than because its not flu. The same thing happened on travel bans. Visiting foreigners might be infected but not returning locals. The story about the 3,000 Spanish football fans runs and runs despite Liverpool being comparatively unaffected, but the 500,000 UK tourists making the same trip never get mentioned.

[gandul]

-
The topic that most interests me most is why some countries got their response to Covid-19 so wrong, compared to many other countries that did quite well.

In particular the United States and the United Kingdom are the stand-out failures.
As of November 2019 in the Global Health Security Index these 2 countries were ranked #1 and #2 as the most prepared.

 Looking at 2019 GHS Index Country Profile for United States

The quote below is from this analysis published in November 2019
Bold type and color added for emphasis.

3.1.1a) Does the country have a national public health emergency response plan in place which addresses planning for multiple communicable diseases with epidemic or pandemic potential?
Score and/or Justification:
The US has a national public health emergency response plan which addresses planning for multiple communicable diseases with pandemic potential. Public health emergency planning exists in the context of overall disaster planning, set out in the National Preparedness System (NPS). The National Response Framework (NRF), last updated 2016, defines US doctrine for managing any type of disaster or emergency. The NRF consists of a base document and Emergency Support Function (ESF) Annexes. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) leads on ESF #8 - Public Health and Medical Services, with responsibility delegated to the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR).[1] The ASPR was created under the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act (PAHPA) 2006. The Act called for the establishment of a quadrennial National Health Security Strategy (NHSS).[2] The ASPR has published an NHSS for 2019-2022 and associated implementation plan. These plan to improve interoperability among stakeholders (public and private, federal and state, and public health, disaster response and military) and raise capacity to quickly and effectively detect disease outbreaks and biological threats. They address newly emerging and re-emerging diseases such as pandemic influenza, Ebola virus, and Zika virus, the potential for these diseases to be animal-related, and related threats such as antimicrobial resistance and biological attacks. They call to modernize key areas such as cybersecurity, agile logistics, command and control, surveillance, laboratory testing and diagnostics, and decontamination capabilities; and address availability and dissemination of medical countermeasures. The NHSS and implementation plan are broad, and guide the development of more specific plans related to particular diseases by federal agencies and state, local, tribal, and territorial (SLTT) partners.[3,4] According to the 2016 Joint External Evaluation (JEE) of the IHR Core Capacities of the United States, the US’ preparedness and response system was “outstanding”.[5] 

How could it go so wrong?

Bad leadership is a clear number 1 reason.
Number 2 is that probably that evaluation didn’t consider the “black swan” characteristics of SARS-Cov-2. A dangerous virus, highly contagious by asymptomatic persons, with no prior immunity among the population.
Number 3 is that global economy did not facilitate preparedness at all.
 

[Tom_Mazanec]

No Tom!

I asked YOU what was the misleading data, exactly, in the Lancet article. Not how bbr misrepresented it.

Tell us, where are the errors in that article?

I don't know of any misleading data. Did I say there was?

[bbr2315]

No Tom!

I asked YOU what was the misleading data, exactly, in the Lancet article. Not how bbr misrepresented it.

Tell us, where are the errors in that article?

DIRECTLY FROM THE ARTICLE


The first cross-sectional, nation-wide analysis of more than 28,000 patients on dialysis in the U.S. found that fewer than 10% of U.S. adults had COVID-19 antibodies as of ********July 2020************** and fewer than 10% were diagnosed. Published today in The Lancet, the new study also shows higher COVID-19 infection rates among ethnic minorities and people living in lower-income, high density, urban areas - underling the need for COVID-19 public health efforts that prioritize these populations in order to prevent general community spread.


You launch a blatant personal attack on me and you still do not realize you are wrong. lol. THE DATA IS FROM JULY and it does not specify WHEN.

Reposting news that is very dated and then replying with attacks on that being pointed out is not valuable to this thread. And he still won't admit he is wrong...

[bbr2315]

I am confused as to why the fact that it takes a few months from data collection to publication is igniting this flame war between you two.

BBR has repeatedly attacked Vox for posting relevant news items.  This was just the latest example of many.  He's attacked others here, too.  Neven would have put him back on moderation or banned him by now.  The good old days.

In the good old days this thread would have never existed and hoax science being repeated alongside political blathering would have been deleted entirely. And that's 95% of the posts here.

Now, when I point out that things being posted are FALSE and MISREPRESENTATIONS, my factual posts are attacked as "anti-scientific". Luckily Neven is not deluded on COVID unlike many of you.

Saying "10% of the US has immunity" in the headline when the data is from JULY and we have had ACCELERATING case growth in many locales since then and tens of thousands of additional deaths, if not like 100K or more depending on when the July data was actually taken, is VERY MISLEADING.

If I said "Sea Ice is at 2.6MKM^3 Third Place Record Area Low" in December using the September data, you would look at the headline and say it was misleading, especially if the sea ice was no longer at third-place at that point and its relative ranking AND area has changed. Now take that differential and double it or more for COVID and you can see how misleading vox_mundi's post is.

Does it really matter that The Lancet published this? An accurate headline would be, "Data Shows 10% of US Had COVID Antibodies As of XXXX Date".

What else is ignored? That the Northeast as a REGION had 25% antibodies as of July.

Vox_mundi's post is a repetition of twisted data that serves an agenda other than his own. It is not scientific. It is not truthful. It is not accurate in its presentation. It is false. And it should be addressed as such. I have laid out exactly why this is the case above.

[gandul]

Cases, hospitalized, and fatalities in Spain since March.
Despite the current disproportionate level of cases (a third from Madrid) there is room for hope. Collapse of health system is still far, the reproductive number is close to unity (no exponential growth). If these conditions continue, I would avoid hard confinements but politicians should set a lot of proactive measures to keep curve from exploding further. Instead, they’re fighting each other.

[bbr2315]

Cases, hospitalized, and fatalities in Spain since March.
Despite the current disproportionate level of cases (a third from Madrid) there is room for hope. Collapse of health system is still far, the reproductive number is close to unity (no exponential growth). If these conditions continue, I would avoid hard confinements but politicians should set a lot of proactive measures to keep curve from exploding further. Instead, they’re fighting each other.

At some point the people who want to stay in basements forever will do so for whatever reason they want. I don't think it is worth trying to dissuade them from the reality fomented by Bezos, Zuckerberg, Dorsey, and whoever else they ascribe to.

Arguing is not fun, but I think it is important that inaccuracies and misrepresentations be pointed out for those sitting upon the fencing of permanent basement dwelling, who may be dissuaded from hysteria. Not only should hysteria be averted, but solutions to the mortality problem posed by COVID should be presented, of which there are many, and I have been emphatic and repetitive in my addressing of each and every one of these solutions to lower one's risk to a disease whose threat can be rendered negligible in the vast majority of humans currently alive IF they bother to adjust their lifestyles accordingly. For some 65+ and immune-compromised, that is impossible, but this is a very small segment of society and misrepresenting their risks as GENERAL risks is irresponsible and morally reprehensible, in my opinion.

I have returned to NYC from my third Hamptons trip of the summer. I'll probably go again next week. I wonder what vox_mundi is up to. I hope he is well!

[glennbuck]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/13/i-was-infected-with-coronavirus-in-march-six-months-on-im-still-unwell

About 600,000 people have some sort of post-Covid illness, according to Tim Spector, professor of genetic epidemiology at King’s College London, who says that around 12% of sufferers report symptoms to the Covid Tracker app for longer than 30 days. One in 200 says the effects last for more than 90 days.

[bbr2315]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/13/i-was-infected-with-coronavirus-in-march-six-months-on-im-still-unwell

About 600,000 people have some sort of post-Covid illness, according to Tim Spector, professor of genetic epidemiology at King’s College London, who says that around 12% of sufferers report symptoms to the Covid Tracker app for longer than 30 days. One in 200 says the effects last for more than 90 days.

How many had pre-COVID illness. Most people were fat and sick before COVID in the West. This is not addressed in the study.

[gerontocrat]

UK is screwed
Our Boris likes records. So he will be delighted that new cases 7 day average is a record-breaker! Super!

According to a UK professor in a month it looks like 100 deaths a day no matter what restrictions are put in place now. Current 7 day average = 30. A worthwhile sacrifice in the name of the great god GDP.

And anyway it seems that some people believe that fat people deserve to die.

[bbr2315]

UK is screwed
Our Boris likes records. So he will be delighted that new cases 7 day average is a record-breaker! Super!

According to a UK professor in a month it looks like 100 deaths a day no matter what restrictions are put in place now. Current 7 day average = 30. A worthwhile sacrifice in the name of the great god GDP.

And anyway it seems that some people believe that fat people deserve to die.

Fat people do not deserve to die, but obesity is basically slow-track suicide anyways, so it may actually just be that they want to die, but cannot act on the desire. This is still tragic, but it illuminates the logical barrier these people face in everyday life, which is only amplified by the pandemic, as heart disease, cancer, et al are by far society's largest killers and correlated highly with obesity.

If someone turns 16, and begins stuffing their face for 15 years and keels over of a heart attack at 31 at 600LB, would you call that "natural progression of obesity" or slow motion suicide? It is like the people who ride motorcycles, and get hit by a truck or whatever (the death rate is like 100X auto accidents or some ridic number). Should everyone start padding their vehicles in styrofoam because a subset of society wants to be splattered on your front grill? When literally, the point of their riding (often indirectly) is they want to end up splattered all over the road?

The same can be said for the obese. How could one end up in such a state and not have a conscious or subconscious suicidal tendency? I think it is impossible. So why should my life be put on hold because a bunch of people want to die? This is not fair.

[Shared Humanity]

Evidence of heart damage in NCAA athletes.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/covid19-coronavirus-heart-injury-college-athletes-sports

Clearly more research is needed.

[bbr2315]

Evidence of heart damage in NCAA athletes.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/covid19-coronavirus-heart-injury-college-athletes-sports

Clearly more research is needed.

There is no before or after or control group comparison. Another bunk study using a sample size of 24.

[Shared Humanity]

Persons who are infected and mildly symptomatic or asymptomatic may still be very sick with long lasting effects.

https://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/view/is-covid-19-primarily-a-heart-and-vascular-diseases

[Shared Humanity]

Post COVID heart damage alarms researchers.

https://news.yahoo.com/post-covid-heart-damage-alarms-researchers-there-was-a-black-hole-in-infected-cells-172015067.html

[Shared Humanity]

Posted link earlier but thought I would repost.

Mount Sinai Researchers Warn Increase in Chronic Kidney Disease Linked to COVID-19

In Retrospective Analysis, Researchers Review Data of Nearly 4,000 Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19

https://www.mountsinai.org/about/newsroom/2020/mount-sinai-researchers-warn-increase-in-chronic-kidney-disease-linked-to-covid19-pr

[Shared Humanity]

KidneyIntelX in Multi-Center Study to Monitor and Predict Kidney Risk in COVID-19 Patients

https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2020/08/03/2071656/0/en/KidneyIntelX-in-Multi-Center-Study-to-Monitor-and-Predict-Kidney-Risk-in-COVID-19-Patients.html

Investigative teams expected to participate in the study include the Mount Sinai Health System Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, Yale New Haven Health/Yale School of Medicine, Michigan Medicine/University of Michigan Medical School, Johns Hopkins Medicine/The Johns Hopkins University Medical School, and Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey/Rutgers New Jersey Medical School.

KidneyIntelX will be used to assess risk for new chronic kidney disease (CKD) in the short-term or kidney disease progression over the longer-term in patients who have recovered from COVID-19. Diverse data inputs, including validated blood and urine-based biomarkers, inherited genetics and extensive patient data from electronic health record systems, will be incorporated into the KidneyIntelX machine learning-enabled algorithm to generate a unique patient risk score.

[Shared Humanity]

Receptors for SARS-CoV-2 Present in Wide Variety of Human Cells

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/receptors-for-sars-cov-2-present-in-wide-variety-of-human-cells-67496#:~:text=While%20there%20has%20been%20much,pancreas%2C%20kidney%2C%20and%20nose.

To uncover the locations of cells bearing ACE2 and TMPRSS2, the preprint researchers turned to the Human Cell Atlas, a project that has allowed scientists to pool together data on human cells since 2016.

By scouring single-cell sequencing records of around 1.2 million individual cells from human tissue samples, the team was able to find out which of those cells produce both ACE2 and TMPRSS2, and note their locations in the body. The analysis used 16 unpublished datasets of lung and airway cells and 91 published datasets spanning a range of human organs.

Coauthor Christoph Muus, a graduate student at Harvard University and the Broad Institute, explains that while the data show cells in many locations in the body produce SARS-CoV-2 receptors, it’s not certain that the virus can infect all of those tissues.

“Expressing the receptor is a necessary condition but not necessarily a sufficient condition,” he says. By finding viral protein fragments in tissue samples from patients who died because of COVID-19, scientists might be able to firm up which organs are genuine sites of infection, he adds.

[Tom_Mazanec]

bbr2315:
I have gone from 260 lbs to 180 lbs. It wasn’t easy. Most, if not all people who are morbidly obese just don’t have the willpower to diet and exercise. I did not want to die when I was fat, but “the spirit was willing but the flesh was weak”. When my cousin became my guardian he gave me the extra push I needed...daily weight check calls.
Don’t be so judgmental.

[bbr2315]

bbr2315:
I have gone from 260 lbs to 180 lbs. It wasn’t easy. Most, if not all people who are morbidly obese just don’t have the willpower to diet and exercise. I did not want to die when I was fat, but “the spirit was willing but the flesh was weak”. When my cousin became my guardian he gave me the extra push I needed...daily weight check calls.
Don’t be so judgmental.

Every single human has a death drive. It is not judgmental, it is the truth. We all have some habits that do ourselves in, but some people can manage theirs much better than others. There is a modicum of management that is most desirable or rather, a threshold one should not surpass, and I would argue the act of allowing oneself to become obese and stay that way crosses said threshold.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_and_Its_Discontents

In the sixth chapter, Freud reviews the development of his concept of libido to explain why it must now be separated into two distinct instincts: the object-instinct of eros and the ego-instinct of thanatos. This 'new' concept of the death drive actually has a long developmental history in Freud’s writings, including his investigations into narcissism and sadomasochism. Freud admits it may be difficult to accept his view of human nature as being predisposed towards death and destruction, but he reasons that the suppression of this instinct is the true cause behind civilization's need for restrictions. Life and civilization, then, are born and develop out of an eternal struggle between these two interpersonal forces of love and hate.

Freud begins the seventh chapter by clearly explaining how the repression of the death instinct gives rise to neurosis in the individual: the natural aggressiveness of the human child is suppressed by society (and its local representative, the father-figure) and turned inward, introjected, directed back against the ego. These aggressive energies develop into the super-ego as conscience, which punishes the ego both for transgressions committed (remorse) but also for sins it has only fantasized about (guilt). All individuals must submit themselves to forming these feelings of guilt, for their aggressive instincts must be repressed if they hope to share in the love which civilized society has appropriated for its members. Guilt and the neurotic repression of instinct are simply the price we pay in order to live together harmoniously in families and communities.

The guilty conscience is the price paid by the individual to belong to civilized society, but often this guilt is left unconscious and is experienced as anxiety or 'discontent'. Freud also considers that in addition to the individual super-ego, there may exist a 'cultural super-ego' that sets itself up as a conscience for society, and that his recommendation for it is the same as his recommendation for many of his neurotic patients: that it must lower its demands on the frail ego. Freud concludes this book by expanding on his distinction between eros and thanatos: "When an instinctual trend undergoes repression, its libidinal elements are turned into symptoms, and its aggressive components into a sense of guilt",[8] and he ponders on how the eternal battle between these heavenly powers will play out in mankind.

If that does not express the state of the world and the rationale of the posts in this thread, I don't know what does. Unbridled consumption -- without guilt, without restriction, RESULTING IN OBESITY WHICH LITERALLY WAS ALMOST NON-EXISTENT BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION -- is the problem here, and it is completely ignored while people clamor for a vaccine. It is ludicrous!

[SteveMDFP]

, RESULTING IN OBESITY WHICH LITERALLY WAS ALMOST NON-EXISTENT BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION -- is the problem here, and it is completely ignored while people clamor for a vaccine. It is ludicrous!

Hardly.  Obesity is far from irrelevant for Covid mortality, but neither is it the most determinative factor.  Age is.  Obesity approximately doubles risk of a bad outcome with Covid.  That's not nothing, neither is it a factor deserving of such attention:
https://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/43/7/1392.abstract

[Shared Humanity]

Somewhat dated (mid June) but article does provide some interesting information on COVID.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7295524/

[Shared Humanity]

Some evidence of testicular damage in COVID patients. More research needed.

Pathological Findings in the Testes of COVID-19 Patients: Clinical Implications

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405456920301449

Results and limitations

Microscopically, Sertoli cells showed swelling, vacuolation and cytoplasmic rarefaction, detachment from tubular basement membranes, and loss and sloughing into lumens of the intratubular cell mass. Two, five, and four of 11 cases showed mild, moderate, and severe injury, respectively. The mean number of Leydig cells in COVID-19 testes was significantly lower than in the control group (2.2 vs 7.8, p < 0.001). In the interstitium there was edema and mild inflammatory infiltrates composed of T lymphocytes and histiocytes. Transmission EM did not identify viral particles in three cases. RT-PCR detected the virus in one of 12 cases.

Male genital damage in COVID-19 patients: Are available data relevant?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214388220300448

All preliminary findings mentioned above suggest that COVID-19 could impact men's reproductive health inducing spermatogenic failure. In conclusion, even though it seems to us that it is premature to make definitive conclusions at present, this should alert to the possible impact of COVID-19 on the male reproductive system. This is particularly important for COVID-19 patients, as most of them are males. Further investigations of the potential male genital damage are warranted.

Coronavirus may damage sperm-making cells without infecting the testes

https://www.bionews.org.uk/page_150085

Scientists from Tongji Medical College, Wuhan, China and Tufts Medical Center, Boston, USA examined 12 men post mortem, aged 49 to 75, who died from COVID-19. Over 80 percent had substantial damage to the seminiferous tubules, that produce and maintain sperm within the testes. In addition, a lower number of Leydig cells was observed, these cells provide hormones that are needed for the production of sperm...

...As this study only focused on patients who had died from COVID-19, it yet remains to be investigated whether patients with less severe disease progression suffer from similar deformation of testicular tissue. It is also unknown whether this may be temporary or could result in permanent damage of the tissue.

[Shared Humanity]

Northwestern Study of Pregnant Women with COVID-19 Finds Placenta Injuries

https://news.wttw.com/2020/06/04/northwestern-study-pregnant-women-covid-19-finds-placenta-injuries

Researchers found blood clots in the placentas and abnormal blood flow between mothers and fetuses, called maternal vascular malperfusion, which is normally seen in women with hypertension or preeclampsia, a condition which only one woman in the study had.

“There’s an emerging consensus that problems with blood clotting and circulatory problems are a feature of the coronavirus,” said Goldstein. “And I think our work shows there might be something clot-forming about coronavirus, and it’s happening in the placenta.”

“This is a reason for concern, but not fear,” said Goldstein, an assistant professor of pathology at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine.