Coronavirus

[electracity]

Well everyone who tests positive for antibodies has T-cell immunity. I have seen people proposing that many people are immune without testing positive for antibodies. There is a paper that found T-cell response in family members who did not test positive for antibodies or the virus itself (Robust T cell immunity in convalescent individuals with asymptomatic or mild COVID-19). It has been found in other studies that the attack rate in families is surprisingly low.
On the other hand we have direct evidence in some populations of extremely high attack rates. There are prisons where 80%+ have been PCR positive and another prison where 92% tested positive for antibodies. 90 of 110 soldiers in a "survival, evasion, resistance and escape course" tested positive for COVID-19 (https://taskandpurpose.com/news/90-soldiers-sere-course-coronavirus-positive). Surely they had perfectly good metabolic health? Hopefully they go back and test them all for antibodies!
To me it's clear that almost no one is immune to COVID-19 in the right circumstances.
Maybe it's possible that viral load does play a big part in disease severity and antibody production?

Perhaps the problem is thinking about immunity and infection as binary events. The immunologist below thinks the first phase of response to the virus is under appreciated. If someone test positive by PCR, has no symptoms, and is not contagious do they have covid?

Coronavirus: Why everyone was wrong

 

[jerry33]

I went to a "religious" private school, and it had one of the top ranked science programs in the world. I literally skipped a year of college at a top-10 university because of it.

Please be careful with oversimplifications.

My experience with "religious" schools was quite different.

 

[bkp_duke]

My experience with "religious" schools was quite different.

Right. My point was we both are taking N=1, or close to it, and drawing conclusions based upon our albeit limited experiences.

If I were to do that about public schools, I would conclude that all of them top out at about a 5th-grade equivalent education, they teach nearly no science, and are basically vocational schools. But I do understand that where I grew up the public schools were some of the worst in the country. I don't really believe they are all that way, but it sure did taint my impression early on. My children, on the other hand, are in great public schools, so that has helped balance out my impressions.

 

[shinytop]

I went to a "religious" private school, and it had one of the top ranked science programs in the world. I literally skipped a year of college at a top-10 university because of it.

Please be careful with oversimplifications.

Ya, but your stated voting record points to a serious lack somewhere in your education.

 

[dfwatt]

Perhaps the problem is thinking about immunity and infection as binary events. The immunologist below thinks the first phase of response to the virus is under appreciated. If someone test positive by PCR, has no symptoms, and is not contagious do they have covid?

Coronavirus: Why everyone was wrong

That opinion piece reads more like a dismissive rant then any version of a seriously reasoned scientific discussion. He even makes some statements that I think are counterfactual from a biological standpoint (for example - that our immune system is only activated when our cells decease in the context of becoming viral factories - this is simply not true as so-called pathogen associated molecular pattern receptors are activated by viral D/RNA as a primary pathway into cytokine production and therefore immune activation) so I'm stunned that this is somebody with a resume in Immunology. There are lots of folks who now believe that there is partial recognition of covid-19 by many people's immune systems because of prior coronavirus exposure. This may help explain the enormously broad spectrum of response to this pathogen which is still frankly novel enough to be dangerous. Obviously no pathogen by definition is completely novel because it evolved from something else. I suspect most of his opinion is frankly outlier and that's actually how he presents himself as someone straightening out all the stupidity in his field. But his level of contempt for conventional thinking in his colleagues borders on arrogance. And while he makes a number of good points, he also knocked down a lot of straw men, and he completely blows himself up at the end. Here's the most damning statement that he makes at the end (posted on July 1st by the way):

"The virus is gone for now. It will probably come back in winter, but it won’t be a second wave, but just a cold. Those young and healthy people who currently walk around with a mask on their faces would be better off wearing a helmet instead, because the risk of something falling on their head is greater than that of getting a serious case of Covid-19."

It's simply impossible to square this minimalist account with the current expansion of the virus, its induction of serious illness even in young people, even if case-fatality rate is down, the risk of long-term Health consequences, so you have to ask yourself, whose account of this pandemic do you trust this guy's or Anthony Fauci's?

 

[Dr. J]

Perhaps the problem is thinking about immunity and infection as binary events. The immunologist below thinks the first phase of response to the virus is under appreciated. If someone test positive by PCR, has no symptoms, and is not contagious do they have covid?

Coronavirus: Why everyone was wrong

"So: Sars-Cov-2 isn’t all that new, but merely a seasonal cold virus that mutated and disappears in summer, as all cold viri do — which is what we’re observing globally right now."

We've gone from "Just the flu, bro" to "Just a bad cold." The summer disappearing act isn't happening in Texas, Florida, Arizona or California. But maybe "globally," it's a different story. <Checks statistics> No, it's not disappearing globally (Northern Hemisphere).

Sometimes when "everyone [else]" is wrong, the error is in the mirror.

 

[bkp_duke]

Ya, but your stated voting record points to a serious lack somewhere in your education.

Nope, if you REALLY want to know, I'm a Christian. As such, I will never vote for anyone that supports unlimited/unconditional abortion. It's my breaking point issue. As mentioned previously, I believe that the rights of the unborn child are woefully under-represented in our country.

I break ranks with Republicans on a lot of issues, which is why I have never registered with that party and consider myself more a conservative-leaning independent. Environment, science (anti-vaxxers), many issues I don't agree with the Republicans.

I'm sure, especially in this group, that won't go over well, but you basically asked, and that's the "why".

 

[N5329K]

Nope, if you REALLY want to know, I'm a Christian. As such, I will never vote for anyone that supports unlimited/unconditional abortion. It's my breaking point issue. As mentioned previously, I believe that the rights of the unborn child are woefully under-represented in our country.

I break ranks with Republicans on a lot of issues, which is why I have never registered with that party and consider myself more a conservative-leaning independent. Environment, science (anti-vaxxers), many issues I don't agree with the Republicans.

I'm sure, especially in this group, that won't go over well, but you basically asked, and that's the "why".

Jesuit schools were (are?) always getting into hot water for teaching too much science. That's what makes them good.
Robin

 

[bkp_duke]

Jesuit schools were (are?) always getting into hot water for teaching too much science. That's what makes them good.
Robin

I didn't go to a Jesuit school.

 

[bkp_duke]

Out of curiosity, you mentioned unlimited/unconditional. Which limited/conditional cases do you have an exception for?

We are getting far afield from the topic of this thread, but I'll answer that and not go further:
1) situations of incest/rape
2) situations where there is imminent risk of severe harm/death to the mother

That pretty much is my limit. I don't expect most here to agree with it, but that is what it is. Why? Because if you are as deeply ingrained in biology as I have been, you really recognize the unique biology of the fetus. The arguments that it "starts as just another cell" and "nothing is special about it till brain waves or a heartbeat appear" really do break down rather quickly when you examine in depth the biology.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Perhaps the problem is thinking about immunity and infection as binary events. The immunologist below thinks the first phase of response to the virus is under appreciated. If someone test positive by PCR, has no symptoms, and is not contagious do they have covid?

Coronavirus: Why everyone was wrong

Well, I guess if everyone is thinking along the lines of this article, that does explain the behavior of the stock market right now. NOTHING TO SEE HERE!

 

[Daniel in SD]

If someone test positive by PCR, has no symptoms, and is not contagious do they have covid?

I'm confused. The PCR test tests directly for the virus. How could someone not be contagious if the virus is in their mucus?
Of course the PCR test could be picking up some dead virus fragments from a COVID-19 infection that they cleared, but they still had it.

 

[dfwatt]

I'm confused. The PCR test tests directly for the virus. How could someone not be contagious if the virus is in their mucus?
Of course the PCR test could be picking up some dead virus fragments from a COVID-19 infection that they cleared, but they still had it.

That's the problem - the PCR test does not adequately distinguish between fragments or chunks of the viral genome that the PCR process amplifies and replicates versus the entire genome in a viable capsule so to speak. But like all tests the PCR test has to be evaluated in a clinical context by a physician or other clinicians skilled and competent in the interpretation of these results. It could mean that you beat the infection just recently (it's just detecting fragments in other words), it could mean that you're an asymptomatic carrier, or it could mean that you are pre-symptomatic and about to become ill in a few days. All of those possibilities would need to be assessed and one of them ruled in eventually. This is why there's no substitute for having Clinicians who know how to do differential diagnostic thinking. A good clinician marches through these various questions and possibilities and evaluates them in light of available evidence or if there's no available evidence, tries to acquire that evidence. There's just no substitute for that. You can actually detect this kind of careful thinking process in your doctors even if you don't have their knowledge base. If on the other hand you do not see evidence for this kind of differential diagnostic thinking process in your health care providers, you might consider moving on to another one. Especially if you see that lack paired with a lack of empathy.

 

[shinytop]

The trouble with having one issue on which you decide who to vote for is that allows for no newer situation. Such as voting for a Republican who started a war in Iraq claiming they had weapons of mass destruction but never did. How many died as a result of that? Did the dead soldiers have less right to live than the unborn? We now have a Republican president who is against abortion but continues to cause the unnecessary deaths of tens of thousands through ignorance and narcissism. Are those lost lives worth so much less than the unborn?

For the record, I abhor the always Democratic voter as much as the always Republican voter. Votes should be cast for the person and the situation at the time, not blindly for one party or one isssue.

 

[bkp_duke]

How do you square: "rights of the unborn child" with "situations of incest/rape"?

To clarify: I don't believe a fetus is a child/person. But you do, correct?

So how can one morally justify murdering a person because their parents committed rape or incest? Wouldn't that imply that rape is a far worse crime than murder?

Actually, yes, I do believe that the fetus is a child/person. The unique biological make-up of a fetus is unlike anything else that the human body goes through.

Honestly, you are correct that I would assume that abortion in the context of rape/incest is murder. I do view it as such. I also recognize the extremely unique circumstance that puts the woman in at that time and that she should and does have a degree of rights. It is an incredibly unique position, and despite my brashness here at times I am not all-knowing and I certainly am not not God, and for that reason I won't be able to give you a well-packaged, perfect answer for this situation. But it is where I personally draw the line, and one which even Christians would disagree with me on because most of them draw a hard line at conception (which is their right and I do understand the reasoning).

On the flip side, I do not believe that a woman should have absolute control to request an abortion right up until birth, because a fetus is very viable, and VERY interactive many months before birth takes place. If we draw the line a "viability" then that is a line which will constantly be moving throughout time as our technology improves. What happens when we invent an artificial womb and can transplant a fetus from a mother to that and care for it till full term? I don't know that answer, but I bet the science will eventually get there.

 

[bkp_duke]

The trouble with having one issue on which you decide who to vote for is that allows for no newer situation. Such as voting for a Republican who started a war in Iraq claiming they had weapons of mass destruction but never did. How many died as a result of that? Did the dead soldiers have less right to live than the unborn? We now have a Republican president who is against abortion but continues to cause the unnecessary deaths of tens of thousands through ignorance and narcissism. Are those lost lives worth so much less than the unborn?

You asked, I answered. Some of us have hard stops at some issues.

This is the problem with putting leaders up on such pedestals, none of them live up to everyone's expectations.

The dems have plenty of baggage and there is a political thread that can be used to air out all the laundry of both sides. Anyone that believes one side is better than the other is wearing blinders, has made up their mind, and does not have a truly open mind but instead uses that purported mindset to try to entrap others in their reasoning.

 

[ggr]

I saw a patient today complaining mandatory mask wearing was weakening his immune system by limiting his exposure to pathogens. After a brief discussion of the skin and gut’s preventative efforts thwarting organisms wishing to end our life that will always keep his immune system active, he shifted his argument to personal freedoms.

Why do I even bother explaining science?

He's also free to not wash his hands after going potty, or clean his teeth, or cook his shellfish, or all sorts of other things.

 

[Doggydogworld]

Brazil President Bolsonaro tests positive for the "little flu". He's already claiming HCQ is preventing it from progressing.

I no longer pay much attention to Sweden since their change to epi-style reporting screwed up Worldometer counting and short of building my own spreadsheet there's no easy way to track 7 day averages any more. But their total number of deaths only seem to increase about 10 per day now. Wednesday used to be their catch-up day, so we'll see.

 

[dfwatt]

This hits the nail on the head. These are simply people with a firmly held belief LOOKING for an argument to support their reasoning.

In psychology, we call this:
Rationalization (psychology) - Wikipedia.

"Rationalization encourages irrational or unacceptable behavior, motives, or feelings and often involves ad hoc hypothesizing. This process ranges from fully conscious (e.g. to present an external defense against ridicule from others) to mostly unconscious (e.g. to create a block against internal feelings of guilt or shame). People rationalize for various reasons—sometimes when we think we know ourselves better than we do. Rationalization may differentiate the original deterministic explanation of the behavior or feeling in question."

And . . .

"According to the DSM-IV, rationalization occurs "when the individual deals with emotional conflict or internal or external stressors by concealing the true motivations for his or her own thoughts, actions, or feelings through the elaboration of reassuring or self serving but incorrect explanations"."

Seems to explain the behavior many groups right now . . .

Yep. And sadly, given how our beliefs and doctrines essentially function as a life raft in the infinite sea of the world, it takes a courageous individual to confront a gap between what they believe and information that's coming in. Science is a great discipline for teaching a kind of permanent partial suspension of belief. We believe some things but we know them to be partial or conditional truths, and we're willing to consider that a new truth might capture the complexity of nature better than our old one.

But it's so hard when we have to confront possible limitations in our political or religious belief systems (these things are first cousins in so many ways), to consider alternative points of view. Especially when you have human tribalism amplifying beliefs as some kind of litmus test for tribal identity and worth. You would think that basic human rights and the preservation of the planet and the environment would be above tribal division but it doesn't look that way.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

AZ looks great. Deaths going down! https://twitter.com/koko_vivian/status/1280546450741444609?s=20 WHERE ARE THE DEATHS?

As @Daniel in SD pointed out to me, it's very fortunate that exponential case growth keeps CFR very low. Whew.