How does it compare to obesity, heart disease or cancer? You know, other medical conditions.For comparison’s sake, that’s:
33 9/11’s
22 Iraq Wars
1.5 Vietnam Wars
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
How does it compare to obesity, heart disease or cancer? You know, other medical conditions.For comparison’s sake, that’s:
33 9/11’s
22 Iraq Wars
1.5 Vietnam Wars
How does it compare to obesity, heart disease or cancer? You know, other medical conditions.
Was Vietnam? DerpAre those highly contagious? Derp.
Is that you still trying to understand how stupid your comparisons were or was it the moment of realization?
Wars are preventableWas Vietnam? Derp
You are advocating giving up and letting the diseases do its worst. To be clear, there is no evidence yet that having had COVID-19 once makes you immune from developing it again.Sooner then later they are just going to open up and if the health workers have enough PPE we will change to the heard and Hope for the best
I advocated no such thing.Wars are preventable
You are advocating giving up and letting the diseases do its worst. To be clear, there is no evidence yet that having had COVID-19 once makes you immune from developing it again.
That's encouraging. Do you have a link to that info? Where was this? My wife and I have been saying for 6 weeks that the key to this is universal antibody testing so we can see who's had it and determine with better certainty if people can become re-infected.
By the way, there is evidence that having COVID-19 provides some immunity.Wars are preventable
You are advocating giving up and letting the diseases do its worst. To be clear, there is no evidence yet that having had COVID-19 once makes you immune from developing it again.
That article from yesterday, while pertaining to monkeys, is promising news. It remains to be seen whether the data transfers to humans and, if so, how long immunity lasts. Typically, even if there is immunity for a virus, it only lasts for about a year. It is not uncommon for people to catch the same cold from a virus twice in the same year. If that is the case, there is no herd immunity. https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/04/27/1000569/how-long-are-people-immune-to-covid-19/By the way, there is evidence that having COVID-19 provides some immunity.
https://thehill.com/policy/healthca...-suggest-covid-19-antibodies-provide-immunity
You realize measles and chicken pox are also caused by viruses, right? I assume you meant to say corona viruses above, not all viruses. And the article you linked (from April 27th) discussed evidence that infection and recovery provides immunity, the question raised by the article is how long the immunity lasts. The good news is it appears SARS recovery provided a longer lasting immune response than common colds. Hopefully we will see a similar response from COVID-19.That article from yesterday, while pertaining to monkeys, is promising news. It remains to be seen whether the data transfers to humans and, if so, how long immunity lasts. Typically, even if there is immunity for a virus, it only lasts for about a year. It is not uncommon for people to catch the same cold from a virus twice in the same year. If that is the case, there is no herd immunity. https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/04/27/1000569/how-long-are-people-immune-to-covid-19/
With all due respect, did you even read the article? All it did was report that there were people who were working on a stadium renovation that ended up getting Covid. There was nothing in the story that suggested the person who wrote it was stating or implying that college football shouldn't be played. It was simply reporting that more than 10 works tested positive and based on what we know about the contagious nature of the virus, more workers at the site could have it.
If you disagree with the statement of the OP, fine, that's fair game, but be fair to what the story actually said and not what you wanted it say so you could complain about "the media".
We are talking about herd immunity. You realize we have vaccines for both measles and chicken pox viruses, right? Every virus MAY have its own period of immunity. We don't know what that period of time is for COVD19. If it exists at all, its not likely to be more than a year. That makes the idea of relying upon herd immunity dubious at best and doesn't change the fact that herd immunity is the worst case result. It means we have failed in preventing maximum spread of the virus.You realize measles and chicken pox are also caused by viruses, right? I assume you meant to say corona viruses above, not all viruses. And the article you linked (from April 27th) discussed evidence that infection and recovery provides immunity, the question raised by the article is how long the immunity lasts. The good news is it appears SARS recovery provided a longer lasting immune response than common colds. Hopefully we will see a similar response from COVID-19.
You realize millions of Americans had the chicken pox, have not had the vaccine and never had the chicken pox again. You also realize that vaccines are designed to provide a immune response to a virus, they do not provide the immunity in and of themselves. And this statement is not supported by the article you linked "If it exists at all, its not likely to be more than a year." The article speculates it MAY only last over that period given our experience with the common cold but MAY last longer given evidence from SARS. You seem to take the worst case as the most likely without much evidence to support your position and ignore evidence which contradicts your position (i.e. claiming there is no evidence of immunity post recovery).We are talking about herd immunity. You realize we have vaccines for both measles and chicken pox viruses, right? Every virus MAY have its own period of immunity. We don't know what that period of time is for COVD19. If it exists at all, its not likely to be more than a year. That makes the idea of relying upon herd immunity dubious at best and doesn't change the fact that herd immunity is the worst case result. It means we have failed in preventing maximum spread of the virus.
Everything I have seen up to this point indicates the antibody testing is not very accurate at all for this virus. Sounds like improvements are being made, and I believe Chicago now has more accurate tests, but most places do not.No, it's just based on personal conversations. I live in southwest Virginia and am an orthodontist and well connected in the community since I treat everyone's children. The police info is directly from their lieutenant and have been told similar things by officers in other local jurisdictions as they have been doing more antibody testing. I also know an epidemiologist in the local department of health and am hearing similar things from them.
Everything I have seen up to this point indicates the antibody testing is not very accurate at all for this virus. Sounds like improvements are being made, and I believe Chicago now has more accurate tests, but most places do not.
I've been reading a bunch about medical testing, and reporting that a test is "accurate" or "inaccurate" is an oversimplification. Medical tests typically reference Sensitivity and Specificity when discussing accuracy.
Maybe some HR Docs can weigh in here, but the problem with antibody tests is that they're too "sensitive" and report a high number of false-positives. Which is totally acceptable when your goal is to get ahead of a Pandemic. This is different then, say, a test for cancer that requires risky surgery, where a false positive could result in an unnecessary death.
Actually there were some contagious things in Vietnam, but we don't want to talk about it.Was Vietnam? Derp
Specificity is the issue, rather than sensitivity. Specificity is the number of true negative test results divide by the number of true negatives plus false positives. The current tests are estimated at around 95%, which is pretty good, but the practical ramifications of that number also depend on the underlying prevalence which we're really still trying to figure out. 1 false positive for every 20 true negatives is a lot if the prevalence of the virus (or those previously infected, anyways) is well below 5% as there would be more false positives than actual cases, but if the prevalence is higher than it's not that bad. Regardless it doesn't mean you can just throw out the antibody testing numbers. They may not be absolutely, perfectly accurate, but they are meaningful.
For comparison’s sake, that’s:
33 9/11’s
22 Iraq Wars
1.5 Vietnam Wars