Welcome Notice

Register Log in

mitigation vs suppression strategy Covid19

B

Bill Sloman

Guest
On Friday, March 27, 2020 at 11:04:20 AM UTC+11, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 8:48:14 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:


In that particular case I was able to follow up your hysterical allegation about ADE and demonstrate that you were talking out of your back end.

See the video from CoVid-19 update on 3/36/2020. Fauci takes the podium at 1:24:45, and launches into a summary of vaccine development at 1:27:50. The safety issue of "enhancement" comes up at 1:28:16.
Why should I bother? Fauci is famously aware of enhancement effects in Dengue and Zika vaccines (where ADE is a real problem), and would list them as things that could go wrong with a vaccine development. That doesn't make them likely or even plausible for Covid-19.

> Now tell me what kind of "enhancement" that may be be. He's perfectly describing ADE. His coverage regarding risk is not even close to being comprehensive. He could say some things that would make people jump out of their seats, but he didn't because he knows how hysterical the fantasy people like yourself can become.

What am I supposed to be being hysterical about? It's you who is whittering on about ADE when there no evidence that it shows up at all with Covid-19, and wants to claim that the Covid-19 non-structural proteins (which slow down the immune response) suggest an HIV-like capacity to destroy the immune system.

That really is hysterical alarmism

> Now tell me who's talking out their rear end.

You, and you just made it even more obvious.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
B

Bill Sloman

Guest
On Friday, March 27, 2020 at 1:54:35 PM UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 9:34:39 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 11:12:21 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

A general-population antibody test would be useful here. Just a few
thousand properly scattered tests would indicate how many people have
had it.

That smacks of an attempt to do statistics? There is no likelihood of random
sampling telling us anything about the whole planet's population, because
the genetic and environmental conditions vary. Also, the tests aren't
of known reliability. Next year, maybe, with a lot MORE than a thousand tests.

The silly '50% have antibodies' hypothesis isn't useful enough to be worth testing now.

The absolute incidence of infection or immunity in the general
population is of *vital* immediate interest. It could circumvent a
worldwide great depression, and could utilize limited resources
with 50% efficiency instead of 2%.
If there was the remotest chance that any world population was already immune.

The first reported case of Covid-19 showed up on the 1st December 2019. It's infectious enough to have created an epidemic since then, and kills enough people to get itself noticed early in the epidemic.

Fat chance of a parallel epidemic of a slightly less lethal strain.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
B

Bill Sloman

Guest
On Friday, March 27, 2020 at 2:23:40 PM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 18:34:34 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 11:12:21 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

A general-population antibody test would be useful here. Just a few
thousand properly scattered tests would indicate how many people have
had it.

That smacks of an attempt to do statistics? There is no likelihood of random
sampling telling us anything about the whole planet's population, because
the genetic and environmental conditions vary. Also, the tests aren't
of known reliability. Next year, maybe, with a lot MORE than a thousand tests.

The silly '50% have antibodies' hypothesis isn't useful enough to be worth testing now.

Good grief, if we did antibody tests on a thousand random US citizens
we'd have a good idea of how many have had it. Right now, we have no
idea.
Actually, you have a very good idea. The first reported Covid-19 case happened on the 1st December 2019.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

It you stick a straight-edge on the logarithmic plot of recorded US cases over time, it hit the axis - one case - the 14th February. You'd imported a few cases before that but had manged to keep most of them quarantined. What you can see is almost certainly what you have got. The disease makes enough people very sick to get itself noticed.

Repeat that every week and look at the trend. You don't want to know
that?
You won't like what you are going to be seeing.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
W

whit3rd

Guest
On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 8:23:40 PM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 18:34:34 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 11:12:21 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

A general-population antibody test would be useful here. Just a few
thousand properly scattered tests would indicate how many people have
had it.

That smacks of an attempt to do statistics? There is no likelihood of random
sampling telling us anything about the whole planet's population...

Good grief, if we did antibody tests on a thousand random US citizens
we'd have a good idea of how many have had it. Right now, we have no
idea.
Wrong, we have the germ theory of disease and lots of observations.
If (ballpark) there's a million affected worldwide, and you test 1000 people,
out of 7 billion, you can expect 0.14 positive tests. That's not statistically
valid, and possibly not outside the reliability-limit on whatever the mystery test is.

It's also not useful information. Until there's LOTS of people with immunity, the
spread rate is not limited effectively. Adding 'US citizens' to the wording
doesn't make any sense. Stick to what's relevant.
 
R

Rick C

Guest
On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 10:54:35 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 9:34:39 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 11:12:21 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

A general-population antibody test would be useful here. Just a few
thousand properly scattered tests would indicate how many people have
had it.

That smacks of an attempt to do statistics? There is no likelihood of random
sampling telling us anything about the whole planet's population, because
the genetic and environmental conditions vary. Also, the tests aren't
of known reliability. Next year, maybe, with a lot MORE than a thousand tests.

The silly '50% have antibodies' hypothesis isn't useful enough to be worth testing now.

The absolute incidence of infection or immunity in the general
population is of *vital* immediate interest. It could circumvent a
worldwide great depression, and could utilize limited resources
with 50% efficiency instead of 2%.
Too bad we don't have the tests needed to determine that. I'm sure Pence is working on it right now!

--

Rick C.

+--- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+--- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
 
R

Rick C

Guest
On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 11:23:40 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 18:34:34 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 11:12:21 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

A general-population antibody test would be useful here. Just a few
thousand properly scattered tests would indicate how many people have
had it.

That smacks of an attempt to do statistics? There is no likelihood of random
sampling telling us anything about the whole planet's population, because
the genetic and environmental conditions vary. Also, the tests aren't
of known reliability. Next year, maybe, with a lot MORE than a thousand tests.

The silly '50% have antibodies' hypothesis isn't useful enough to be worth testing now.

Good grief, if we did antibody tests on a thousand random US citizens
we'd have a good idea of how many have had it. Right now, we have no
idea.

Repeat that every week and look at the trend. You don't want to know
that?
All you need to do is explain the possible significant results and how to respond to each of them. If you don't know that it is a pointless test.

--

Rick C.

+--+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+--+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
 

Guest
On Friday, March 27, 2020 at 12:39:02 AM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 8:23:40 PM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 18:34:34 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 11:12:21 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

A general-population antibody test would be useful here. Just a few
thousand properly scattered tests would indicate how many people have
had it.

That smacks of an attempt to do statistics? There is no likelihood of random
sampling telling us anything about the whole planet's population...

Good grief, if we did antibody tests on a thousand random US citizens
we'd have a good idea of how many have had it. Right now, we have no
idea.

Wrong, we have the germ theory of disease and lots of observations.
If (ballpark) there's a million affected worldwide, and you test 1000 people,
out of 7 billion, you can expect 0.14 positive tests. That's not statistically
valid, and possibly not outside the reliability-limit on whatever the mystery test is.

It's also not useful information. Until there's LOTS of people with immunity, the
spread rate is not limited effectively. Adding 'US citizens' to the wording
doesn't make any sense. Stick to what's relevant.
You're not understanding the premise.

If you randomly test a thousand people in New York, you can start
getting a vague notion of how common the infection is in New York.

If you get two per thousand, for example, that supports one theory
of prevalence + spread + lethality and one set of policy responses;
if you get 200 per thousand, that's a completely different kettle
of fish.

It's a low-cost experiment that has a modest chance of an enormous
savings in life and treasure.

Cheers,
James Arthur
 
B

Bill Sloman

Guest
On Friday, March 27, 2020 at 4:22:14 PM UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Friday, March 27, 2020 at 12:39:02 AM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 8:23:40 PM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 18:34:34 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 11:12:21 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

A general-population antibody test would be useful here. Just a few
thousand properly scattered tests would indicate how many people have
had it.

That smacks of an attempt to do statistics? There is no likelihood of random
sampling telling us anything about the whole planet's population...

Good grief, if we did antibody tests on a thousand random US citizens
we'd have a good idea of how many have had it. Right now, we have no
idea.

Wrong, we have the germ theory of disease and lots of observations.
If (ballpark) there's a million affected worldwide, and you test 1000 people,
out of 7 billion, you can expect 0.14 positive tests. That's not statistically
valid, and possibly not outside the reliability-limit on whatever the mystery test is.

It's also not useful information. Until there's LOTS of people with immunity, the
spread rate is not limited effectively. Adding 'US citizens' to the wording
doesn't make any sense. Stick to what's relevant.

You're not understanding the premise.

If you randomly test a thousand people in New York, you can start
getting a vague notion of how common the infection is in New York.
For new disease that makes people quite sick enough to notice this is something of a waste of time.

The people who you do need to test are queuing up for treatment.

If you get two per thousand, for example, that supports one theory
of prevalence + spread + lethality and one set of policy responses;
if you get 200 per thousand, that's a completely different kettle
of fish.

It's a low-cost experiment that has a modest chance of an enormous
savings in life and treasure.
It might be, if there was any chance that there were many people out in the community whom random testing might reveal to have had the disease.

At present it would probably throw up a lot more false positives than useful results. Right now there are better ways of using the test kits.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 

Guest
On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 11:09:28 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, March 27, 2020 at 11:04:20 AM UTC+11, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 8:48:14 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:


In that particular case I was able to follow up your hysterical allegation about ADE and demonstrate that you were talking out of your back end.

See the video from CoVid-19 update on 3/36/2020. Fauci takes the podium at 1:24:45, and launches into a summary of vaccine development at 1:27:50. The safety issue of "enhancement" comes up at 1:28:16.

Why should I bother? Fauci is famously aware of enhancement effects in Dengue and Zika vaccines (where ADE is a real problem), and would list them as things that could go wrong with a vaccine development. That doesn't make them likely or even plausible for Covid-19.

Now tell me what kind of "enhancement" that may be be. He's perfectly describing ADE. His coverage regarding risk is not even close to being comprehensive. He could say some things that would make people jump out of their seats, but he didn't because he knows how hysterical the fantasy people like yourself can become.

What am I supposed to be being hysterical about? It's you who is whittering on about ADE when there no evidence that it shows up at all with Covid-19, and wants to claim that the Covid-19 non-structural proteins (which slow down the immune response) suggest an HIV-like capacity to destroy the immune system.

That really is hysterical alarmism

Now tell me who's talking out their rear end.

You, and you just made it even more obvious.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Nah- you don't know what you're talking about and you're in denial of you're enhanced level of ignorance of the subject matter. Sad that you also lack the intellectual resources to learn anything about it either. You don't even know who Fauci is, which is saying quite a lot about how removed you are from reality. You come from another shit-for-brains country that's royally mismanaging their epidemic too.
 

Guest
On Friday, March 27, 2020 at 1:22:14 AM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Friday, March 27, 2020 at 12:39:02 AM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 8:23:40 PM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 18:34:34 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 11:12:21 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

A general-population antibody test would be useful here. Just a few
thousand properly scattered tests would indicate how many people have
had it.

That smacks of an attempt to do statistics? There is no likelihood of random
sampling telling us anything about the whole planet's population...

Good grief, if we did antibody tests on a thousand random US citizens
we'd have a good idea of how many have had it. Right now, we have no
idea.

Wrong, we have the germ theory of disease and lots of observations.
If (ballpark) there's a million affected worldwide, and you test 1000 people,
out of 7 billion, you can expect 0.14 positive tests. That's not statistically
valid, and possibly not outside the reliability-limit on whatever the mystery test is.

It's also not useful information. Until there's LOTS of people with immunity, the
spread rate is not limited effectively. Adding 'US citizens' to the wording
doesn't make any sense. Stick to what's relevant.

You're not understanding the premise.

If you randomly test a thousand people in New York, you can start
getting a vague notion of how common the infection is in New York.

If you get two per thousand, for example, that supports one theory
of prevalence + spread + lethality and one set of policy responses;
if you get 200 per thousand, that's a completely different kettle
of fish.

It's a low-cost experiment that has a modest chance of an enormous
savings in life and treasure.

Cheers,
James Arthur
Developing the antibody test is a really big deal. The main challenge is determination of an antigen that's specific to COVID-19 and not a different corona virus. Several research labs have found some, after extensive laboratory assays, but even then they are doing extensive testing on plasma samples of victims. And once they overcome that hurdle, there is the problem of manufacture of the antigens. When you're looking at a huge number of tests, everything has to be very precise to avoid the false negative/ false positive failures. Another drawback of the antibody test is the pathogenesis of the infection. People do not instantly develop levels of antibodies within the detectable limits of the test. My guess is the infection has to be ongoing for at least a few weeks to register a positive on the test. On the opposite end of the spectrum, antibodies don't circulate forever. As soon as the virus is cleared from the bloodstream and the immune system stops being activated, the body ceases production of antibodies which again may cause a possible statistic to drop off the radar.
The PCR also has its drawbacks. The primary one is expense, they're not cheap. Then this test only detects people in the throes of an ongoing infection, it really doesn't give any information about history since people get well and/or are cured when the viremia is cleared from the blood. It does have the advantage of detecting very early stages of infection, usually withing 24 hours of introduction.
Our resident most unknowledgeable self-styled expert on the subject matter is Sloman, knows all about this too, I'm sure.
 
L

legg

Guest
On Tue, 24 Mar 2020 11:14:03 -0400, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:

Per capita comparisons are interesting.

The Wuhan event resulted in virus detections per capita
in the 50ppm range for the country as a whole, at the
end of present containment excercises. The resources of
the rest of the country were applied in this exercise.

In Italy, Spain and Iceland, it's over 1000ppm, at present,
without containment.

China would have had to have had 20 Wuhans, to match this.

So, the US and other countries, currently at a 3day doubling
rate of detection, should be ready for the 20x Wuhan effect
on it's resources, as no containment is possible at this
late date.

Every case doesn't need to be detected - that's just an
indicator of the development.

RL
As of Mar26, the US detections are up to 210ppm (4x Wuhan).
Canada roughly half that - so running ~3 days behind, now
that the US is actually testing.

Iceland continues to test, inreasingly outside central care
community, is recording 2160ppm . . .
1.0% of tests reporting positive in 3% of total pop tested.
Fatalities at 6ppm from a 340ppm detection recorded 7 days
previously.

Italy hanging in at 1250ppm. (25x Wuhan)
Fatalities at 120ppm from a 680ppm detection recorded
7 days previously. This probably reflects the health care
overload, compared to Iceland.

Depressing report from US charity field hospital in Cremona,
with 20 ventillators under tent cover - no recoveries so far,
(one fatality) after running for seven days.

RL
 
R

Rick C

Guest
On Friday, March 27, 2020 at 11:24:35 AM UTC-4, legg wrote:
On Tue, 24 Mar 2020 11:14:03 -0400, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:

Per capita comparisons are interesting.

The Wuhan event resulted in virus detections per capita
in the 50ppm range for the country as a whole, at the
end of present containment excercises. The resources of
the rest of the country were applied in this exercise.

In Italy, Spain and Iceland, it's over 1000ppm, at present,
without containment.

China would have had to have had 20 Wuhans, to match this.

So, the US and other countries, currently at a 3day doubling
rate of detection, should be ready for the 20x Wuhan effect
on it's resources, as no containment is possible at this
late date.

Every case doesn't need to be detected - that's just an
indicator of the development.

RL

As of Mar26, the US detections are up to 210ppm (4x Wuhan).
Canada roughly half that - so running ~3 days behind, now
that the US is actually testing.

Iceland continues to test, inreasingly outside central care
community, is recording 2160ppm . . .
1.0% of tests reporting positive in 3% of total pop tested.
Fatalities at 6ppm from a 340ppm detection recorded 7 days
previously.

Italy hanging in at 1250ppm. (25x Wuhan)
Fatalities at 120ppm from a 680ppm detection recorded
7 days previously. This probably reflects the health care
overload, compared to Iceland.

Depressing report from US charity field hospital in Cremona,
with 20 ventillators under tent cover - no recoveries so far,
(one fatality) after running for seven days.

RL
The per capita numbers mean pretty much nothing because the impact on the different areas of a country are so different. In China the bulk of the impact was on the city of Wuhan and less so the province of Hubei. Other provinces were affected much less so.

Likewise around have the infections in the US are in NY state and half of those are in NYC. It would be much more instructive to compare NYC to Wuhan.. Making per capita comparisons between countries brings more variables into account.

--

Rick C.

+-+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
 

Guest
On Fri, 27 Mar 2020 11:29:44 -0400, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:

On Tue, 24 Mar 2020 11:14:03 -0400, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:

Per capita comparisons are interesting.

The Wuhan event resulted in virus detections per capita
in the 50ppm range for the country as a whole, at the
end of present containment excercises. The resources of
the rest of the country were applied in this exercise.

In Italy, Spain and Iceland, it's over 1000ppm, at present,
without containment.

China would have had to have had 20 Wuhans, to match this.

So, the US and other countries, currently at a 3day doubling
rate of detection, should be ready for the 20x Wuhan effect
on it's resources, as no containment is possible at this
late date.

Every case doesn't need to be detected - that's just an
indicator of the development.

RL

As of Mar26, the US detections are up to 210ppm (4x Wuhan).
Canada roughly half that - so running ~3 days behind, now
that the US is actually testing.

Iceland continues to test, inreasingly outside central care
community, is recording 2160ppm . . .
1.0% of tests reporting positive in 3% of total pop tested.
Fatalities at 6ppm from a 340ppm detection recorded 7 days
previously.

Italy hanging in at 1250ppm. (25x Wuhan)
Fatalities at 120ppm from a 680ppm detection recorded
7 days previously. This probably reflects the health care
overload, compared to Iceland.

Depressing report from US charity field hospital in Cremona,
with 20 ventillators under tent cover - no recoveries so far,
(one fatality) after running for seven days.

RL
The math-genius governor of California says we need "more targeted
testing."



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
"Bunter", he said, "I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason"
 
R

Rick C

Guest
On Friday, March 27, 2020 at 2:32:31 PM UTC-4, legg wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2020 08:39:28 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:


As of Mar26, the US detections are up to 210ppm (4x Wuhan).
Canada roughly half that - so running ~3 days behind, now
that the US is actually testing.

Iceland continues to test, inreasingly outside central care
community, is recording 2160ppm . . .
1.0% of tests reporting positive in 3% of total pop tested.
Fatalities at 6ppm from a 340ppm detection recorded 7 days
previously.

Italy hanging in at 1250ppm. (25x Wuhan)
Fatalities at 120ppm from a 680ppm detection recorded
7 days previously. This probably reflects the health care
overload, compared to Iceland.

Depressing report from US charity field hospital in Cremona,
with 20 ventillators under tent cover - no recoveries so far,
(one fatality) after running for seven days.

RL

The per capita numbers mean pretty much nothing because the impact on the different areas of a country are so different. In China the bulk of the impact was on the city of Wuhan and less so the province of Hubei. Other provinces were affected much less so.

Likewise around have the infections in the US are in NY state and half of those are in NYC. It would be much more instructive to compare NYC to Wuhan. Making per capita comparisons between countries brings more variables into account.

As strategy is still a national prerogative, and data is generally
collated with national borders as the only guides, national ppm is
related here.

If you can reliably and rationaly do otherwise, please be my guest.
I'm doing my own data collecting so you do yours and I'll do mine.

But your argument doesn't hold water. I've already explained why. On top of that there is the issue that in the US this is not being handled at a national level, but by the states. So each state has different regulations for the degree of restrictions in place.

Nope, lumping an entire country into one kettle of fish has little value.

--

Rick C.

+-++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
 
L

legg

Guest
On Fri, 27 Mar 2020 08:39:28 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:


As of Mar26, the US detections are up to 210ppm (4x Wuhan).
Canada roughly half that - so running ~3 days behind, now
that the US is actually testing.

Iceland continues to test, inreasingly outside central care
community, is recording 2160ppm . . .
1.0% of tests reporting positive in 3% of total pop tested.
Fatalities at 6ppm from a 340ppm detection recorded 7 days
previously.

Italy hanging in at 1250ppm. (25x Wuhan)
Fatalities at 120ppm from a 680ppm detection recorded
7 days previously. This probably reflects the health care
overload, compared to Iceland.

Depressing report from US charity field hospital in Cremona,
with 20 ventillators under tent cover - no recoveries so far,
(one fatality) after running for seven days.

RL

The per capita numbers mean pretty much nothing because the impact on the different areas of a country are so different. In China the bulk of the impact was on the city of Wuhan and less so the province of Hubei. Other provinces were affected much less so.

Likewise around have the infections in the US are in NY state and half of those are in NYC. It would be much more instructive to compare NYC to Wuhan. Making per capita comparisons between countries brings more variables into account.
As strategy is still a national prerogative, and data is generally
collated with national borders as the only guides, national ppm is
related here.

If you can reliably and rationaly do otherwise, please be my guest.

RL
 

Guest
On Friday, March 27, 2020 at 2:47:12 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Friday, March 27, 2020 at 9:03:03 AM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, March 27, 2020 at 1:22:14 AM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Friday, March 27, 2020 at 12:39:02 AM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 8:23:40 PM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 18:34:34 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 11:12:21 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

A general-population antibody test would be useful here. Just a few
thousand properly scattered tests would indicate how many people have
had it.

That smacks of an attempt to do statistics? There is no likelihood of random
sampling telling us anything about the whole planet's population....

Good grief, if we did antibody tests on a thousand random US citizens
we'd have a good idea of how many have had it. Right now, we have no
idea.

Wrong, we have the germ theory of disease and lots of observations.
If (ballpark) there's a million affected worldwide, and you test 1000 people,
out of 7 billion, you can expect 0.14 positive tests. That's not statistically
valid, and possibly not outside the reliability-limit on whatever the mystery test is.

It's also not useful information. Until there's LOTS of people with immunity, the
spread rate is not limited effectively. Adding 'US citizens' to the wording
doesn't make any sense. Stick to what's relevant.

You're not understanding the premise.

If you randomly test a thousand people in New York, you can start
getting a vague notion of how common the infection is in New York.

If you get two per thousand, for example, that supports one theory
of prevalence + spread + lethality and one set of policy responses;
if you get 200 per thousand, that's a completely different kettle
of fish.

It's a low-cost experiment that has a modest chance of an enormous
savings in life and treasure.

Cheers,
James Arthur

Developing the antibody test is a really big deal. The main challenge is determination of an antigen that's specific to COVID-19 and not a different corona virus. Several research labs have found some, after extensive laboratory assays, but even then they are doing extensive testing on plasma samples of victims. And once they overcome that hurdle, there is the problem of manufacture of the antigens. When you're looking at a huge number of tests, everything has to be very precise to avoid the false negative/ false positive failures. Another drawback of the antibody test is the pathogenesis of the infection. People do not instantly develop levels of antibodies within the detectable limits of the test. My guess is the infection has to be ongoing for at least a few weeks to register a positive on the test. On the opposite end of the spectrum, antibodies don't circulate forever. As soon as the virus is cleared from the bloodstream and the immune system stops being activated, the body ceases production of antibodies which again may cause a possible statistic to drop off the radar.
The PCR also has its drawbacks. The primary one is expense, they're not cheap. Then this test only detects people in the throes of an ongoing infection, it really doesn't give any information about history since people get well and/or are cured when the viremia is cleared from the blood. It does have the advantage of detecting very early stages of infection, usually withing 24 hours of introduction.
Our resident most unknowledgeable self-styled expert on the subject matter is Sloman, knows all about this too, I'm sure.

This interesting report just popped up when I refreshed the CDC
webpage a few minutes ago--
Asymptomatic and Presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infections in Residents of
a Long-Term Care Skilled Nursing Facility — King County, Washington,
March 2020
Early Release / March 27, 2020 / 69
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6913e1.htm?s_cid=mm6913e1_w

In a nutshell, a "health care provider" showed up to work sick with
WuFlu on Feb. 26 & 28th.

o By March 6th, seven of the nursing-home residents were symptomatic,
and had positive WuFlu tests.
o On March 13th, CDC tested 76 of the 82 residents. 23 tested positive.
Of those 23 positives, ten had symptoms when tested, and 13 did not.
o By March 20th, 10 of the 13 non-symptomatic patients had become
symptomatic.

Cheers,
James Arthur
Here's something you're one of the few who will appreciate. A story about all this finger pointing blame in the test availability fiasco. What's the one common thread that runs throughout? All these brain dead, process worshiping, bureaucratic women in high level positions where they can, and actually did, cause very significant damage. It's just woman after woman after woman... no further explanation necessary. And only in the U.S. which coincidentally has the worst response and outcomes in the industrialized world.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2020/03/27/coronavirus-test-officials-botched-rollout-derailed-containment/5080781002/
 

Guest
On Friday, March 27, 2020 at 9:03:03 AM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, March 27, 2020 at 1:22:14 AM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Friday, March 27, 2020 at 12:39:02 AM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 8:23:40 PM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 18:34:34 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 11:12:21 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

A general-population antibody test would be useful here. Just a few
thousand properly scattered tests would indicate how many people have
had it.

That smacks of an attempt to do statistics? There is no likelihood of random
sampling telling us anything about the whole planet's population....

Good grief, if we did antibody tests on a thousand random US citizens
we'd have a good idea of how many have had it. Right now, we have no
idea.

Wrong, we have the germ theory of disease and lots of observations.
If (ballpark) there's a million affected worldwide, and you test 1000 people,
out of 7 billion, you can expect 0.14 positive tests. That's not statistically
valid, and possibly not outside the reliability-limit on whatever the mystery test is.

It's also not useful information. Until there's LOTS of people with immunity, the
spread rate is not limited effectively. Adding 'US citizens' to the wording
doesn't make any sense. Stick to what's relevant.

You're not understanding the premise.

If you randomly test a thousand people in New York, you can start
getting a vague notion of how common the infection is in New York.

If you get two per thousand, for example, that supports one theory
of prevalence + spread + lethality and one set of policy responses;
if you get 200 per thousand, that's a completely different kettle
of fish.

It's a low-cost experiment that has a modest chance of an enormous
savings in life and treasure.

Cheers,
James Arthur

Developing the antibody test is a really big deal. The main challenge is determination of an antigen that's specific to COVID-19 and not a different corona virus. Several research labs have found some, after extensive laboratory assays, but even then they are doing extensive testing on plasma samples of victims. And once they overcome that hurdle, there is the problem of manufacture of the antigens. When you're looking at a huge number of tests, everything has to be very precise to avoid the false negative/ false positive failures. Another drawback of the antibody test is the pathogenesis of the infection. People do not instantly develop levels of antibodies within the detectable limits of the test. My guess is the infection has to be ongoing for at least a few weeks to register a positive on the test. On the opposite end of the spectrum, antibodies don't circulate forever. As soon as the virus is cleared from the bloodstream and the immune system stops being activated, the body ceases production of antibodies which again may cause a possible statistic to drop off the radar.
The PCR also has its drawbacks. The primary one is expense, they're not cheap. Then this test only detects people in the throes of an ongoing infection, it really doesn't give any information about history since people get well and/or are cured when the viremia is cleared from the blood. It does have the advantage of detecting very early stages of infection, usually withing 24 hours of introduction.
Our resident most unknowledgeable self-styled expert on the subject matter is Sloman, knows all about this too, I'm sure.
This interesting report just popped up when I refreshed the CDC
webpage a few minutes ago--
Asymptomatic and Presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infections in Residents of
a Long-Term Care Skilled Nursing Facility — King County, Washington,
March 2020
Early Release / March 27, 2020 / 69
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6913e1.htm?s_cid=mm6913e1_w

In a nutshell, a "health care provider" showed up to work sick with
WuFlu on Feb. 26 & 28th.

o By March 6th, seven of the nursing-home residents were symptomatic,
and had positive WuFlu tests.
o On March 13th, CDC tested 76 of the 82 residents. 23 tested positive.
Of those 23 positives, ten had symptoms when tested, and 13 did not.
o By March 20th, 10 of the 13 non-symptomatic patients had become
symptomatic.

Cheers,
James Arthur
 
B

Bill Sloman

Guest
On Saturday, March 28, 2020 at 12:03:03 AM UTC+11, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, March 27, 2020 at 1:22:14 AM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Friday, March 27, 2020 at 12:39:02 AM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 8:23:40 PM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 18:34:34 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 11:12:21 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
<snip>

> Developing the antibody test is a really big deal. The main challenge is determination of an antigen that's specific to COVID-19 and not a different corona virus. Several research labs have found some, after extensive laboratory assays, but even then they are doing extensive testing on plasma samples of victims. And once they overcome that hurdle, there is the problem of manufacture of the antigens.

So you've never heard of monoclonal antibodies? The IASys biosensor unit that I worked on in 1992-3 depended on them for it's sensitivity and specificity. they were commercially available off the shelf back then.

Mass producing the right antibody may be a problem, but once you which one is right, volume production is just turning on the tap.

> When you're looking at a huge number of tests, everything has to be very precise to avoid the false negative/ false positive failures.

That's seems to be a known problem, with well-known solutions.

> Another drawback of the antibody test is the pathogenesis of the infection. People do not instantly develop levels of antibodies within the detectable limits of the test.

Obviously true.

> My guess is the infection has to be ongoing for at least a few weeks to register a positive on the test.

Obviously false.The antibodies are a critical part of the immune response of the patient, and if they didn't have enough to register after a few weeks it would be cause they were dead.

>On the opposite end of the spectrum, antibodies don't circulate forever. As soon as the virus is cleared from the bloodstream and the immune system stops being activated, the body ceases production of antibodies which again may cause a possible statistic to drop off the radar.

Rubbish. I got measles as kid, some seventy years ago, and I'm not at risk of developing measles now because I've still got circulating antibodies to the measles virus.

The PCR also has its drawbacks. The primary one is expense, they're not cheap. Then this test only detects people in the throes of an ongoing infection, it really doesn't give any information about history since people get well and/or are cured when the viremia is cleared from the blood. It does have the advantage of detecting very early stages of infection, usually withing 24 hours of introduction.

Our resident most unknowledgeable self-styled expert on the subject matter is Sloman, knows all about this too, I'm sure.
I clearly know more than Fred Bloggs, who does go in for posting fatuous nonsense. I do know enough to avoid posting claims about subjects that I don't know much about - like when there enough Covid-19 virus circulating in a patients bloodstream to be detectable by whatever test they are using.

The IASys biosensor unit that I worked on was claimed to be able to detect 4000 molecules in in the 100 ul drop sample that it looked at. That's not a lot, but I've no idea how many virus particles you might see in a nose swab from a Covid-19 victim at any given stage in an infection.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
B

Bill Sloman

Guest
On Friday, March 27, 2020 at 11:39:12 PM UTC+11, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 11:09:28 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, March 27, 2020 at 11:04:20 AM UTC+11, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 8:48:14 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:


In that particular case I was able to follow up your hysterical allegation about ADE and demonstrate that you were talking out of your back end.

See the video from CoVid-19 update on 3/36/2020. Fauci takes the podium at 1:24:45, and launches into a summary of vaccine development at 1:27:50. The safety issue of "enhancement" comes up at 1:28:16.

Why should I bother? Fauci is famously aware of enhancement effects in Dengue and Zika vaccines (where ADE is a real problem), and would list them as things that could go wrong with a vaccine development. That doesn't make them likely or even plausible for Covid-19.

Now tell me what kind of "enhancement" that may be be. He's perfectly describing ADE. His coverage regarding risk is not even close to being comprehensive. He could say some things that would make people jump out of their seats, but he didn't because he knows how hysterical the fantasy people like yourself can become.

What am I supposed to be being hysterical about? It's you who is whittering on about ADE when there no evidence that it shows up at all with Covid-19, and wants to claim that the Covid-19 non-structural proteins (which slow down the immune response) suggest an HIV-like capacity to destroy the immune system.

That really is hysterical alarmism

Now tell me who's talking out their rear end.

You, and you just made it even more obvious.

Nah- you don't know what you're talking about and you're in denial of you're enhanced level of ignorance of the subject matter.
You would like to think that.

>Sad that you also lack the intellectual resources to learn anything about it either. You don't even know who Fauci is, which is saying quite a lot about how removed you are from reality.

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

The disconnection from reality is all yours. Fauci has been popping up on the news quite a lot recently, and what I said about him reflected an appreciation of what he has done.

> You come from another shit-for-brains country that's royally mismanaging their epidemic too.

They could certainly be doing better,

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/australia/

but Australia is at 140ppm case incidence and the US is at 315ppm. More importantly, our new case per day rate is starting to drop and your isn't.

Our prime minister is more worried about the economy than the people dying, which puts him in the same handbasket as Trump, but he's proving easier to pressure towards more rational priorities.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 

Guest
On Saturday, March 28, 2020 at 12:43:02 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, March 28, 2020 at 12:03:03 AM UTC+11, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, March 27, 2020 at 1:22:14 AM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Friday, March 27, 2020 at 12:39:02 AM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 8:23:40 PM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 18:34:34 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 11:12:21 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

snip

Developing the antibody test is a really big deal. The main challenge is determination of an antigen that's specific to COVID-19 and not a different corona virus. Several research labs have found some, after extensive laboratory assays, but even then they are doing extensive testing on plasma samples of victims. And once they overcome that hurdle, there is the problem of manufacture of the antigens.

So you've never heard of monoclonal antibodies? The IASys biosensor unit that I worked on in 1992-3 depended on them for it's sensitivity and specificity. they were commercially available off the shelf back then.

Mass producing the right antibody may be a problem, but once you which one is right, volume production is just turning on the tap.
More of your nearly unparalleled ignorance! The tests being developed now are the type to detect antibodies in the suspected victims' blood. It does this by exposing the blood sample to a viral antigen, antibodies attach themselves to the antigen and become trapped there. Monoclonal antibodies are not used in this type of test. There may be others using the technology you have described but I haven't read any news of them-yet.

When you're looking at a huge number of tests, everything has to be very precise to avoid the false negative/ false positive failures.

That's seems to be a known problem, with well-known solutions.

Another drawback of the antibody test is the pathogenesis of the infection. People do not instantly develop levels of antibodies within the detectable limits of the test.

Obviously true.

My guess is the infection has to be ongoing for at least a few weeks to register a positive on the test.

Obviously false.The antibodies are a critical part of the immune response of the patient, and if they didn't have enough to register after a few weeks it would be cause they were dead.
Or near dead. This testing is not go or no go type. There are confidence probabilities associated with the detection as a function of time post-infection and the distribution of observed immune responses across the population.. Ideally the test will give a 99.9% probability of true positive. And the standard procedure after that result is to use other technologies with even greater precision to confirm the result. The relatively high cost of the confirmation drives the requirement for high confidence antibody testing. To get that kind of number, many antibody tests need 30-days post infection by the virus.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, antibodies don't circulate forever. As soon as the virus is cleared from the bloodstream and the immune system stops being activated, the body ceases production of antibodies which again may cause a possible statistic to drop off the radar.

Rubbish. I got measles as kid, some seventy years ago, and I'm not at risk of developing measles now because I've still got circulating antibodies to the measles virus.
Unless you have an ongoing active infection, which is probably affecting your brain by the sound of your incoherent babbling, you have no circulating antibodies. What you do have are what's called memory T-cells which encapsulate memory if the infection and how to combat it by way of antibody and lymphocyte production.
Antibodies as an immune defense are only a half measure anyway. The really big guns are the killer T-lymphocytes, that's why we have them, Duh.


The PCR also has its drawbacks. The primary one is expense, they're not cheap. Then this test only detects people in the throes of an ongoing infection, it really doesn't give any information about history since people get well and/or are cured when the viremia is cleared from the blood. It does have the advantage of detecting very early stages of infection, usually withing 24 hours of introduction.

Our resident most unknowledgeable self-styled expert on the subject matter is Sloman, knows all about this too, I'm sure.

I clearly know more than Fred Bloggs, who does go in for posting fatuous nonsense. I do know enough to avoid posting claims about subjects that I don't know much about - like when there enough Covid-19 virus circulating in a patients bloodstream to be detectable by whatever test they are using.
Once you again you just made an ass of yourself. The negative PCR is the standard for declaring a virus victim cured of the infection. This is policy in places like Japan, Korea, Singapore and probably the U.S. It makes sense because an undetectable PCR means the patient is no longer infectious.

The IASys biosensor unit that I worked on was claimed to be able to detect 4000 molecules in in the 100 ul drop sample that it looked at. That's not a lot, but I've no idea how many virus particles you might see in a nose swab from a Covid-19 victim at any given stage in an infection.
"People who have recovered won’t have RT-PCR positive tests, as they’ve already cleared the virus. Those who are recovered, those antibodies protect them from reinfection. (It’s still unclear, however, how long that immunity might last.)"
Keep digging your hole deeper.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Here's a simple explanation even you can understand:
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/covid-19-coronavirus-pandemic-how-antibody-blood-tests-work

Keep posting your gibberish, it does have the benefit of enhancing the idiocy of anyone dumb enough to read newsgroup.
 
Toggle Sidebar

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Top