google-site-verification=EzRt-ZmNlc4J5RNLXiuJpAEGjNviG678nNB1w49cgZg Jump to content
DeeCee

Coronavirus | COVID-19 | Global Pandemic | PLEASE KEEP DISCUSSION TO THIS THREAD

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, MrGlass2 said:

At least 0.1% of New Yorkers have died from the coronavirus. Not 0.1% of the infected, 0.1% of the entire population of the state.

 

Not the flu.

Even at 0.1% of the infected ,would put it significantly above the flu at least potentially, we are used to see flu death rate among symptomatic people, not infected people and instead of having 10-25% of the population getting infected it could be much higher.

 

Even that best case scenario would be a really bad flu year, worst than the worst year after the 30s.

 

Imagine a 0.1% ICFR with a 70% of the population getting it during the first 3 waves, that 222K deaths in the USA, the regular seasonal flu go over the system limits (in Canada we have over 100% occupancy in emergency rooms, over 120% quite often during them) in is peak and during some long period during it's worst year hospital have people in their parkings/tents, 3x time the worst flu year would still be quite the rough time.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, terrestrial said:

 

I hope they do not use veterans as guinea pigs too (like in a way the news about the increased death toll of US veterans looks at least a bit like to me)

I see @Jason just touched on this, but unless the UK is different from the US (possible!) what would happen in the US is NOT 'challenge trials'.  Not yet at least.

 

Here is a case for challenge trials, BTW:

 

 

Making sure that people know the risks and aren't being pressured or coerced or anything similar.  And even then its full of ethical minefields.  But it is an interesting read.  Like to see Jason's thoughts on it if he gets a chance to read it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I see @Jason just touched on this, but unless the UK is different from the US (possible!) what would happen in the US is NOT 'challenge trials'.  Not yet at least.

 

Here is a case for challenge trials, BTW:

 

 

Making sure that people know the risks and aren't being pressured or coerced or anything similar.  And even then its full of ethical minefields.  But it is an interesting read.  Like to see Jason's thoughts on it if he gets a chance to read it.

I should also add that the US has some very very VERY bad history here regarding this sort of thing in the past and that ABSOLUTELY needs to be kept in mind here before even contemplating something like this right now.  Especially when the temptation to have short cuts or put pressure on marginalized members of society will be very heavy.

Edited by Porthos
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

100k deaths in US is basically a lock at this point. Probably will happen before june,

 

They are already at 45k and had 2,500+ deaths just today. lol at Trump saying they will have 50-60k deaths.

Edited by Damianport1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


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

Making sure that people know the risks and aren't being pressured or coerced or anything similar.  And even then its full of ethical minefields.  But it is an interesting read.  Like to see Jason's thoughts on it if he gets a chance to read it.

In some NJ hospitals, they give hydroxychloroquine to everyone - some as part of a test, but even those who don't qualify - without asking.

  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MrGlass2 said:

In some NJ hospitals, they give hydroxychloroquine to everyone - some as part of a test, but even those who don't qualify - without asking.

See, that's exactly what I'm talking about.  The pressure to engage in short cuts is tremendous.

 

It would have and I do mean have to be strictly regulated and any outfit found deliberately exposing folks to COViD-19 during a clinical trial of a possible vaccine without clear and express consent ahead of time should be come down on like a ton of bricks.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Porthos said:

 

That Scott Adams one is something else.

Makes sense all of these were on 4/20.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dinesh D'Souza has one of the most punchable faces. What a fucking twat. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Porthos said:

I see @Jason just touched on this, but unless the UK is different from the US (possible!) what would happen in the US is NOT 'challenge trials'.  Not yet at least.

 

Here is a case for challenge trials, BTW:

 

 

Making sure that people know the risks and aren't being pressured or coerced or anything similar.  And even then its full of ethical minefields.  But it is an interesting read.  Like to see Jason's thoughts on it if he gets a chance to read it.

 

I am angry about the % of veterans that died, hence the swipe at the US version of future tries

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

So how will they know if it works?

 

Has someone got to volunteer to be infected?

This is not my area of expertise, but I'm pretty sure that the way to test a vaccine for effectiveness is to administer it and then periodically check for the presence of antibodies. Subjects are also tracked for side effects and their health result (whether they got what they were vaccinated for, or some other illness). 

 

So yes, test subjects are essentially volunteering to be infected. There is some risk involved, and there's really no other way to do this.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone sent me this video and I thought I'd share. I learned a number of things from it, and am now going through this doctor's channel watching other videos.

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Porthos said:

 

That Scott Adams one is something else.

I legitimately think D'Souza must have some form of mental disability. And Sean Davis is a full on conspiracy theorist

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There. Are. More. Important. Things. Than. Living. 

 

 

  • Haha 3
  • ...wtf 6
  • Disbelief 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you guys really forced to share the thoughts of the crazies? I mean, do we really have to hear the voices of America's most deranged minds? 

These guys have an audience only because they get attention, if you hate them just don't talk about them.

 

I never heard of these people and believe me it's perfect like that.

 

a20b0a76ab31160664b3dfc49d46a9d3a257077d

 

 

Edited by Fullbuster
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Are you guys really forced to share the thoughts of the crazies? I mean, do we really have to hear the voices of America's most deranged minds? 

These guys have an audience only because they get attention, if you hate them just don't talk about them.

 

I never heard of these people and believe me it's perfect like that.

 

a20b0a76ab31160664b3dfc49d46a9d3a257077d

 

 

Problem is here in the States many of them cross over in to the mainstream and become quasi-legitimized.

 

It's dangerous for sane people to simply ignore them.

  • Like 3
  • Sad 1

Share this post


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

I see @Jason just touched on this, but unless the UK is different from the US (possible!) what would happen in the US is NOT 'challenge trials'.  Not yet at least.

 

Here is a case for challenge trials, BTW:

 

 

Making sure that people know the risks and aren't being pressured or coerced or anything similar.  And even then its full of ethical minefields.  But it is an interesting read.  Like to see Jason's thoughts on it if he gets a chance to read it.


I can see the merits of conducting a challenge trial instead of relying on natural infection. But aside from informed consent, the presence of neutralizing bodies in each volunteer should be confirmed by assay first, and it should be determined from animal trials that there aren't any effects such as antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). ADE was observed in some of the SARS-CoV candidates in animal studies, and it would be an absolute nightmare for that to occur in a human trial - basically, the formation of antibodies that help the virus enter cells instead of neutralizing it.

Even if volunteers are informed of that risk, the headlines from such a trial would create a HUGE risk that people would be reluctant to accept even a different vaccine proven to be safe. It could also more generally cause a greater fear of vaccination - something we know has happened in the past.
 

22 minutes ago, doublejack said:

This is not my area of expertise, but I'm pretty sure that the way to test a vaccine for effectiveness is to administer it and then periodically check for the presence of antibodies. Subjects are also tracked for side effects and their health result (whether they got what they were vaccinated for, or some other illness). 

 

So yes, test subjects are essentially volunteering to be infected. There is some risk involved, and there's really no other way to do this.


Not necessarily, something I didn't make clear in my earlier reply. Usually in phase 1, you would just use blood tests to check for generation of antibodies, along with monitoring for side effects.

Even in later phases, it's often the case that volunteers are not deliberately exposed to the virus. Instead, they are compared with a randomized control group given a placebo shot - with a sufficiently large sample, the efficacy of the vaccine can be determined without deliberately infecting anyone.

If we successfully contain the virus, being able to determine efficacy quickly would be facilitated by a challenge study. But it's not an absolute necessity.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, PDC1987 said:

Problem is here in the States many of them cross over in to the mainstream and become quasi-legitimized.

 

It's dangerous for sane people to simply ignore them.

 

As someone having to be careful to avoid anxiety it's clear the US is too anxiety-inducing, it must be hard for such people.

It also might explain why so many of you don't vote, maybe it's just too painful to watch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, PDC1987 said:

Problem is here in the States many of them cross over in to the mainstream and become quasi-legitimized.

 

It's dangerous for sane people to simply ignore them.

There are extremely dangerous people in Europe too, they don't sound crazy but the "herd immunity strategy" crowd hasn't gone anywhere. Did you know that children aren't contagious? It is the explanation given to reopen the schools in many countries where the contagion is far from "controlled".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, grim22 said:

There. Are. More. Important. Things. Than. Living. 

 

 

 

America is doomed.

 

Im sorry, what is wrong with these people? Are they braindead? Are they mentally ill? I dont understand.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.