Well, it would in fact be helpful if when stranded in the wild I could reach someone in government on my cell phone, and they gave me very specific suggestions. Right away. Otherwise I’d have to try to remember what they taught us in Cub Scouts.
IFR
IFR = “Infection Fatality Rate”?
Yeah, sure. Maybe. Lucky me.
Except now. I’m one of the (gasp) “high risk” people. So they say.
And I’ve been wearing a mask, same as you.
Conspiracists aren’t very good with history in regards to mandatory vaccination eh? 
Yes, IFR is the reason why “government hasn’t recommended wearing a mask before”. IFR is about risk/benefit ratio and how much the government needs to step into daily lives to protect people from their own ignorance
1 Like
- Have apostrophes become unavailable?
- There ain’t gonna be no vaccine by October, madam. Cool your jets.
Perhaps. Anyway, I don’t disagree.
Note: This post was moved from another thread and is out of context here. Link to the other thread is below.
A large segment of the population desperately wants a “green light”, more so the longer it takes before a vaccine is available, and I think there will be a widespread societal mentality that the final FDA approval of a vaccine is that long-awaited “green light”. It’ll be hard to know how many people have actually had the shot once distribution starts, and many people won’t care. “It’s out there so things are OK now.” I’m not a sociologist, just an observer, but I don’t think that the majority follow the news about cases, hospitalizations, deaths, etc.
For my part, the pace at which the vaccines are being pushed through for certification makes me more than a bit nervous about safety. I’ll get the shot ASAP and hope that it works as advertised, but I am concerned about potential side effects that only long-term phase three trials can expose. Which gets back to your comment about “trust in the quality of the clinical trials”.
Speaking of pool testing, I read of a very interesting variant that’s going to be implemented at Michigan State Univ. this fall. They plan to test about 100 people at a time, but in a unique way.
Think of the 100 people being tested as being arranged in a 10 x 10 table (ten columns and ten rows). They plan to test 20 pools at a time, in two sets of 10 pools.
One set of ten pools will consist of the ten people in each column. The second set of ten pools will consist of the ten people in each row.
If one of the “column” pools tests positive and one of the “row” pools tests positive, then the person at the intersection, the one who’s common to both pools must be the person who’s infected, and that person gets detailed evaluation.
If there are no positive pools, they’ve cleared 100 people with 20 tests. This should work very well, provided the positivity rate is well under 10%. If only one person is in the crosshairs, they’ve still cleared 99 others, and found the one that’s actually infected.
Where did you read that? I’m not finding it with Google.
One part of that makes no sense: if they test the ten columns and get no positives, they don’t need to do the other ten tests on the rows.
Well, I saw it here:
I think the reason for testing both columns and rows at the same time is to get simultaneity in the test results. If they test just the columns and there’s a positive, and then they then test rows because of that, they wouldn’t have test results from the same date.
Also, speaking of vaccines, antibodies, and immunity, while antibody-based immunity (via vaccine or infection-based) might be relatively short-lived (months), long-term immunity will hopefully be conferred by activation of the body’s immune system; namely, the T-cells in our blood. These specialized white blood cells retain “memory” of what to attack as they reproduce, and they do so for a great many generations.
Additionally, the good news is that “there are still no confirmed cases of Covid-19 reinfection anywhere in the world.”
These remarks and quote are per the article in the July 31 edition of The Week magazine, page 21 (under Health and Science)
That doesn’t sound quite right.
Good article. I’m very familiar with T-cells (in the context of cancer immunotherapy), but not so much the B-cells, which The Week article also mentioned. A covid-19 vaccine that induces robust, long-term protection from a combination of both would be outstanding.
1 Like
Yeah I’m not reading this whole thread, lol 
but re T cells: just recently there was a study published by the NIH where researchers looked at blood samples from 23 people who’d survived SARS.
It showed that “those individuals still had lasting memory T cells today, 17 years after the outbreak. Those memory T cells, acquired in response to SARS-CoV-1, also recognized parts of SARS-CoV-2.“
2 Likes
That’s pretty good news, Gr8. Thx.
1 Like
Not sure what you are talking about but it seems that you don’t really know what you are talking about. How about citing some science papers with your hypothesis. And it is obvious with your comments about Fauci which mirror those following Trump that you are anti-science and don’t understand what Fauci has said and published
3 Likes
@DoctorChow please stop posting claims about Covid-19 research and the like without cites. That post was full of misinformation. Better yet, post only links, not your gloss on them.
2 Likes
That article’s misleading and your summary of it is way off.
Here’s the actual study.
In conclusion, our data show that anti-Spike IgG from serum of severely ill COVID-19 patients strongly amplifies pro-inflammatory responses by human macrophages, and can contribute to subsequent endothelial barrier disruption and thrombosis. This may explain the observation that many COVID-19 patients become critically ill around the time of activation of adaptive immune responses. In general, antibodies are beneficial for host defense by providing various mechanisms to counteract infections. …