It seems early to be analyzing infection/transmission rates when we know the incubation time is 14 days or so, and it hasn't been that long (or close to it) since some of the lockdowns ended. Also, very interesting that JP Morgan paid for a study that shows people need to go back to work to keep business/stocks performing.
I would be interested to see a study 5-6 weeks after lockdown ends, though.
I agree.
Re: Coronavirus: When should we be concerned?
Posted: Sun May 24, 2020 7:00 pm
by Nodack
I know a lot of churches planned on opening up today. Did they? The beaches were opening too. Drunk people partying don’t make the best decisions. It will definitely be interesting to see if there is a spike in two weeks.
I know a lot of churches planned on opening up today. Did they? The beaches were opening too. Drunk people partying don’t make the best decisions. It will definitely be interesting to see if there is a spike in two weeks.
I heard that most of the churches that opened were going to cut back on the communion wine.
Re: Coronavirus: When should we be concerned?
Posted: Tue May 26, 2020 10:51 am
by O_Gardino
Last year, my morbid curiosity had me researching the fall of the bronze age. It's an interesting topic for people who like systems theory because bronze age societies had such strongly interconnected economies and political relationships.
Anyway, there's not a lot of hard data about why that system failed, because it was followed by a "dark age" in which writing was not a priority. Historians have their pet theories, but nobody can be sure of the specifics. What we ARE sure of is that there were many coinciding factors that put a strain on the international economic system of the day. That system was incredibly efficient in times of prosperity, but could not adjust when supply chains were interrupted.
If you are interested, give it a google. There are a lot of parallels to our current situation. I'm not saying this is the end of the modern world, but I do think we will see a strengthening of local economies over the larger international economies.
Re: Coronavirus: When should we be concerned?
Posted: Tue May 26, 2020 11:14 am
by Nodack
I wish I had a time machine and could look a 2, 5 and 10 years into the future. What would I do right now to best prepare?
I know a lot of churches planned on opening up today. Did they? The beaches were opening too. Drunk people partying don’t make the best decisions. It will definitely be interesting to see if there is a spike in two weeks.
I heard that most of the churches that opened were going to cut back on the communion wine.
I know a lot of churches planned on opening up today. Did they? The beaches were opening too. Drunk people partying don’t make the best decisions. It will definitely be interesting to see if there is a spike in two weeks.
I heard that most of the churches that opened were going to cut back on the communion wine.
How about the passing of bread?
That's still ok because you can't get drunk on bread.
Re: Coronavirus: When should we be concerned?
Posted: Tue May 26, 2020 7:21 pm
by BigLewy
So, just got my antibody results back and apparently I had a positive result. Could explain why I felt a little off in February at some point, but not sure how much I trust the results seeing as how I'm 2 hours East of the cesspool known as NYC. It was a SARS-Cov-2 Serology test and the IgG result detected it.
Looks like I'll be running around without a mask and licking door knobs starting tomorrow!!
So, just got my antibody results back and apparently I had a positive result. Could explain why I felt a little off in February at some point, but not sure how much I trust the results seeing as how I'm 2 hours East of the cesspool known as NYC. It was a SARS-Cov-2 Serology test and the IgG result detected it.
Looks like I'll be running around without a mask and licking door knobs starting tomorrow!!
Wow. On the other hand, I heard today that those tests are 50% effective.
So, just got my antibody results back and apparently I had a positive result. Could explain why I felt a little off in February at some point, but not sure how much I trust the results seeing as how I'm 2 hours East of the cesspool known as NYC. It was a SARS-Cov-2 Serology test and the IgG result detected it.
Looks like I'll be running around without a mask and licking door knobs starting tomorrow!!
Wow. On the other hand, I heard today that those tests are 50% effective.
Yep, I heard the same thing and am not putting much stock into the positive result. Still planning on utilizing the same precautions as before, but I am going to clarify with my company on if the test I was given had high specificity (whatever that means), as that apparently makes it quite unlikely to produce any false positives.
Re: Coronavirus: When should we be concerned?
Posted: Wed May 27, 2020 6:49 am
by Indy
And we currently don't know if the antibodies protect you forever, or a year, or a month, or not at all. Nobody knows yet.
So, just got my antibody results back and apparently I had a positive result. Could explain why I felt a little off in February at some point, but not sure how much I trust the results seeing as how I'm 2 hours East of the cesspool known as NYC. It was a SARS-Cov-2 Serology test and the IgG result detected it.
Looks like I'll be running around without a mask and licking door knobs starting tomorrow!!
Glad you're feeling okay. The antibodies are a good thing, since it may protect you from further infection. Hopefully this means you'll be safe in the future. But as others have said, the inaccuracy of the antibody tests makes it tricky to know what to make of any result.
Re: Coronavirus: When should we be concerned?
Posted: Wed May 27, 2020 8:34 am
by Indy
We have been debating about using the antibody tests for our 35000 employees for the last several weeks in order to get back to work. Our physicians just don't feel it is accurate enough to be beneficial right now, but I am not sure on all of their reasoning. I hope we find out soon how much protection the antibodies give, and hope that the test stop picking up common colds instead of Covid-19.
Re: Coronavirus: When should we be concerned?
Posted: Wed May 27, 2020 10:59 am
by BigLewy
A phlebotomist came to my house today to draw my wife's blood for her antibody test, since she can get it done for free at my company as well. I asked the woman a few questions about the test and she said she's been in the field for 25 years and swears by the results based on the lab used for the results. She said something about how this particular lab will flag a positive test with low levels of antibodies, which is apparently unlike Quest Diagnostics, who don't flag it until there are much higher levels. I thought that higher levels would mean that it is more prevalent, but maybe it's the opposite. Could just be lip service, but she is adamant about the accuracy of the results. Interestingly, she said she actually recovered from Covid, and her teenage daughter living in the same house never got it. She stayed in a different level of the house, but I would have thought that it would be almost guaranteed for someone in the same house to get it.
I guess that's a long winded way of saying who the hell knows at this point. Conflicting information is everywhere, and as you said Indy, how long is the "immunity" for, if you do in fact have the antibodies?
A phlebotomist came to my house today to draw my wife's blood for her antibody test, since she can get it done for free at my company as well. I asked the woman a few questions about the test and she said she's been in the field for 25 years and swears by the results based on the lab used for the results. She said something about how this particular lab will flag a positive test with low levels of antibodies, which is apparently unlike Quest Diagnostics, who don't flag it until there are much higher levels. I thought that higher levels would mean that it is more prevalent, but maybe it's the opposite. Could just be lip service, but she is adamant about the accuracy of the results. Interestingly, she said she actually recovered from Covid, and her teenage daughter living in the same house never got it. She stayed in a different level of the house, but I would have thought that it would be almost guaranteed for someone in the same house to get it.
I guess that's a long winded way of saying who the hell knows at this point. Conflicting information is everywhere, and as you said Indy, how long is the "immunity" for, if you do in fact have the antibodies?
If she swears by it, she doesn’t know what she’s talking about. Anybody that speaks definitively regarding anything about this virus (testing,treatment,etc) should be questioned. Clearly an ego is involved. I find this a lot in people that know just enough to be dangerously confident in medicine.
This test is completely prevalence dependent. In areas like most of the country not named NYC, or the other hot spots, a positive test is more likely to be a false positive. Specificity only relates to the test itself, it does not account for how common the disease is in the community- what you are looking for is the negative predictive value ie- if the test result is negative, how much can I trust that I truly do not have the disease?
Even the manufacturers of the serology tests explicitly state this is strictly for surveillance of prevalence in community. It CANNOT be used to rule IN or OUT the disease.
Re: Coronavirus: When should we be concerned?
Posted: Wed May 27, 2020 12:11 pm
by Superbone
Thanks for that, doc! No, seriously. It's nice to hear somebody who knows what they're talking about with these medical issues versus what us laymen read in the news. Glad you're here!
Re: Coronavirus: When should we be concerned?
Posted: Wed May 27, 2020 1:14 pm
by BigLewy
Agreed-thanks for the perspective, Sauce. I'd trust your opinion over hers. She was adamant that the test and lab running the results was close to 100% accurate, which just cannot be true. I'm about 10 minutes from the NY border in the hardest hit county in CT, so maaaaybe my results are accurate because of the number of cases in my area? But that's exactly the problem, nobody knows definitively.
Agreed-thanks for the perspective, Sauce. I'd trust your opinion over hers. She was adamant that the test and lab running the results was close to 100% accurate, which just cannot be true. I'm about 10 minutes from the NY border in the hardest hit county in CT, so maaaaybe my results are accurate because of the number of cases in my area? But that's exactly the problem, nobody knows definitively.
Thanks ‘Bone! Happy to give my two cents but you already know that lol. I will happily admit when I don’t know something, and I don’t think there’s a right answer for much of this stuff now.
Lewy, yes I would trust your results over somebody in say Phoenix where the prevalence is much lower.
Re: Coronavirus: When should we be concerned?
Posted: Thu May 28, 2020 8:31 pm
by Nodack
The CDC says always wear a mask in public. The WHO says if you are healthy you don’t need to wear a mask because there is no evidence it protects you from getting the virus. The very next thing they say in their video is that if you are caring for a person with Covid you should definitely wear a mask. Why? If it doesn’t protect you at all and the person you are caring for already has Covid then why wear a mask then?
Re: Coronavirus: When should we be concerned?
Posted: Thu May 28, 2020 9:36 pm
by Superbone
Man, just went back and saw that AIG started this thread on January 27th. Just imagine how many death could have been avoided if the country had been concerned then.
No, seriously. It's nice to hear somebody who knows what they're talking about with these medical issues versus what us laymen read in the news. Glad you're here!