Excellent article on how COVID-19 is spread

[EYERACE]

People can be reinfected 'they' say after the Patient would have already been infected and recovered.......well for what I've learned today the reinfected thing is a lot less of a worry than people should think.

Of course if you had strong symptoms for a couple of weeks and tested positive for COVID, got way better in time and later tested negative for COVID and later got obviously sick again and then also tested positive for COVID a second time.....well you either had a second infection you picked up some how some where from someone else.....or you had a relapse because your own infection resurfaced?....or you had your negative result via a test that was wrong - so you waxed and waned on your own but were in reality sick with COVID for longer than the generally stated 2 week or so time frame. And then of course there's the test-positive asymptomatic person who later might test either way (positive yet or negative and then positive again) some weeks later.....always remaining asymptomatic.

However there's another way to end up having others thinking you're infected a second time......and have no symptoms.......because you're not really COVID sick the second time.
I've talked with the people that make the Abbott test and then confirmed something from what came to me from another channel.
The Abbott test will say 'positive' if it finds the virus containing its entire mRNA strand in you.......however tests may also say 'positive' if a segment of the entire virus mRNA is manifest......a mere partial segment of the mRNA chain will not make you sick or anyone else sick or replicate. So if fragments remain after one was infected (be it sick or asymptomatic originally) some tests will argue you're infected again......when you're not infected at all a second time.

Lack of symptoms after having COVID symptoms (because you were actually infected) is no proof that viron fragments are not present in the Patient......so you got to know the ins and outs of what test is administered.

Worst part of this becomes perhaps some Government Official thinks that - we'll call 'em a "fragment Patient" - the fragment Patient must once again self-quarantine for 2 weeks when they really didn't need to.........so the "COVID cops" maybe end up even arresting the fragment Patient who refused to stay home for the 2 weeks.

[Rick Kirchner]

The problem is a lot of crappy tests that got out there because we needed something but then you find out that when you run the numbers "something" is in some cases little better than a 50/50 chance. And this is why we need federal standards, not only for the tests, but the testing, and the reporting.

[swiftdrivr]

I read something yesterday [can't recall where] that indicated no infections transmitted by those with recurrent positive tests, after previous negative results. Small sample, but about 800 contacts traced and no transmission. It may be that some people don't clear the virus particles after infection, but as yet, it's unproven. It's also possible that this virus behaves like chicken-pox, hides somewhere in the body, and can come back for a different presentation [think shingles] later. No evidence of that either, but none would be expected this early, so lack of evidence isn't very reassuring,

[FVRacer21]

I was trying to stay away and take a break - but today another employee where I work tested positive (the first passed away from complications), we have two people awaiting tests, and I have been fighting to find out why results can take up to 7 - 10 days and now this:

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...-texas/611935/

Going to crawl under a rock - call me in about 3 months......

ChrisZ

[EYERACE]

Different Companies make differing units to read blood sugar.....and there is no overall encompassing government standard that says they all must work the exact same way. So expect that with what COVID tests the FDA allows out to the market. There are directives here or Asia or Europe that set - if you want to call it that - guidelines for medical devices.......but there is 'wiggle room' within those directives that would allow differing units to work via differing technology and achieving the same end......in one example > bingo! a blood sugar level. This creates though the possibility of a COVID test unit to say 'positive!' when it detects merely mRNA COVID fragments in addition to fully intact virus.

[Daryl DeArman]

Over the last 30+ years we have averaged more than 200 pages of new Federal Regulations every calendar day. We don't need more regulations.

What we need are folks with above average intelligence, competency and lack of political agenda to interpret the results.

[FVRacer21]

Over the last 30+ years we have averaged more than 200 pages of new Federal Regulations every calendar day. We don't need more regulations.

What we need are folks with above average intelligence, competency and lack of political agenda to interpret the results.

Daryl,

Do you mean like this:



Not to hijack this thread - I posted on my blog: https://restexpect.blogspot.com/2020...oo-little.html

I agree with the last part btw.

ChrisZ

[Daryl DeArman]

Daryl,

Do you mean like this:

Yep, great example.

[swiftdrivr]

[QUOTE=FVRacer21;605280]I was trying to stay away and take a break - but today another employee where I work tested positive (the first passed away from complications), we have two people awaiting tests, and I have been fighting to find out why results can take up to 7 - 10 days and now this:

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...-texas/611935/

Going to crawl under a rock - call me in about 3 months......

ChrisZ[/QUOT

I can see where adding positive acute [ active] cases to past cases might be helpful in determining spread and prevalence, and I can see how many would confuse the two, especially if given data aggregates without noting the difference. However, the CDC and state health officials have little excuse for such a mistake. Some of the confusion is simply political, some is inattention, and I suspect some is people who should know just really don't know. Government hasn't even shown competence in giving away "free" money [choose the democrat or republican example, as suits you.] Government employees don't seem to be terminated after being found to spend hours a day watching porn. Where there is no accountability, there is little incentive to do a job well. Not shocked that they missed this distinction, which most untrained people wouldn't have recognized even if they were looking.

[Rick Kirchner]

Standards are not regulations, although a regulation might call out meeting a standard.

[Daryl DeArman]

Standards are not regulations, although a regulation might call out meeting a standard.

True.

So what good would the standards you are speaking of do, lacking a regulation to mandate such standards?

[Rick Kirchner]

Virtually EVERYTHING that your technology runs on started life as an ad-hoc standard via an industry group and then got adopted by a standards organization like IEEE, ASME, etc.

Compliance is nearly all voluntary - of course nobody wants to buy your stuff if it represents a diversion from standards with no real value. Just ask Sony with their mini-cds, their odd memory sticks, etc.

One purpose behind standards is consistency so that the buyer doesn't have to evaluate all of the merits of the item himself. There's electrical stuff out there that is not UL approved for instance, but if you were a manufacturer, why buy it as part of your system and suffer through the certification yourself when you can buy something with understood design aspects and build quality?

[Daryl DeArman]

Virtually EVERYTHING that your technology runs on started life as an ad-hoc standard via an industry group and then got adopted by a standards organization like IEEE, ASME, etc.

Compliance is nearly all voluntary - of course nobody wants to buy your stuff if it represents a diversion from standards with no real value. Just ask Sony with their mini-cds, their odd memory sticks, etc.

One purpose behind standards is consistency so that the buyer doesn't have to evaluate all of the merits of the item himself. There's electrical stuff out there that is not UL approved for instance, but if you were a manufacturer, why buy it as part of your system and suffer through the certification yourself when you can buy something with understood design aspects and build quality?

Agreed with all above. However, your statements do nothing towards answering my question about the specific standards you desire with regards to COVID19 testing and data interpretation/publication without additional regulations.

[EYERACE]

Best idea for testing would be, using ICD-10 diagnosis code U07.1, have your Doc write orders for COVID testing at your local pathology lab, be it for antibodies or the virus.....Quest or LabCorp are 2 examples that come to mind.....rather than some "drive-thru"

[Rick Kirchner]

Ya know Daryl, there are times when you actually NEED a standard AND a regulation. Because without it, you have the meaningless **** we have going on now. Some regulations are good. The NEC is good, but meaningless without states and counties requiring its use.

I'm sure part of the current goat rope is due to the fact that even IF there was a specifically desired test and reporting methodology there wasn't enough capacity to produce it, which opened the door for all kinds of crap and crapmeisters. file this under the old engineering adage "you want it badly, you get it bad"

No doubt sometime in the next two years there will be a standard and a regulation for viral testing in the future. And that won't be a bad thing. And if not, at least there will be a fairly large cadre of people that worked on enough variants of this stuff that they will have to learn less as they go next time.

[FVRacer21]

Best idea for testing would be, using ICD-10 diagnosis code U07.1, have your Doc write orders for COVID testing at your local pathology lab, be it for antibodies or the virus.....Quest or LabCorp are 2 examples that come to mind.....rather than some "drive-thru"

In CT right now the amount of tests has overwhelmed the labs. - results can take 2 -3 days or 7 - 10.

I am in the middle of this as a coworker took 7 days to get a result and it was positive - he was at work on day 1, got sick on day 2, tested on day 4 and results on day 11. 8 of us possibly exposed on day 1 - what do you do 11 days later????? One person had symptoms — he and spouse went for test and are now awaiting results.........

Local hospital going from deep nose test to lower nose swab - but I heard it might not be accurate - this all happened when change was from only people with symptoms getting tested to anyone who wants it. Also, opening up elective surgeries - patients are required to have test and have to quarantine themselves between the tests and the surgery or procedure - I am going to quarantine myself for a week for a colonoscopy? Isn’t the prep punishment enough?

I will bet the numbers you are seeing are at least a week behind reality - I am watching Wisconsin......

ChrisZ

[Daryl DeArman]

Ya know Daryl, there are times when you actually NEED a standard AND a regulation.

Agreed.

I disagree that this is one of those instances where we need standards and regulations for the tests, the testing and the reporting. Even with 100% valid test results and accurate and consistent reporting of the numbers there won't be agreement on the proper response. Even among the "experts", much less all of is in the peanut gallery.

[Rick Kirchner]

I disagree that this is one of those instances where we need standards and regulations for the tests, the testing and the reporting. Even with 100% valid test results and accurate and consistent reporting of the numbers there won't be agreement on the proper response. Even among the "experts", much less all of is in the peanut gallery.

The primary driver of the different responses is the ability of the policy makers to dismiss the science to fit their own narrative due to the lack of consistency in the data and the leeway that provides from both the scientific community and the "peanut gallery". If you have data you can believe in the science drives the discussion which much less leeway for disagreement.

[Daryl DeArman]

If you have data you can believe in the science drives the discussion which much less leeway for disagreement.

Let me know when there's consensus from the scientific experts regarding Global Warming, despite the Yotabytes of data available on the subject. Confirmation bias is too strong.

[Jayeff]

Let me know when there's consensus from the scientific experts regarding Global Warming, despite the Yotabytes of data available on the subject. Confirmation bias is too strong.

The only scientists that disagree are those that are paid to do so, and that's 3% of the total.

[swiftdrivr]

[QUOTE=Rick Kirchner;605454 If you have data you can believe in the science drives the discussion which much less leeway for disagreement.[/QUOTE]


In our first lecture in Med school, they told us they'd teach us a lot of stuff, but half of it would turn out to be wrong. That was before the politicization of science. Now, global warming is a religion, and anyone who questions it is attacked, and even fired from government jobs [Kathleen Sebelius "wasn't tolerating any climate-deniers"] This despite known episodes of falsified "science". .During a pandemic, when early scientific studies suggested a well studied, 65 year old, commonly used drug might help, and we had little else that could help, that drug was denied to the ill in some states, for purely political reasons, even though the study showing it helped was well done, by respected people. Truth has never had much of a role in politics, and "science" is frequently for sale.[look a drug-company funded studies if you doubt it] Even when there is no obvious political bias, it is hard to design studies that give unequivocal answers. As much as I'd love to be able to, you can't just take science on face value anymore. Most of us, myself included, aren't statisticians, and few even look to see the study design or the qualifications of the authors [one recent study trashing hydroxchloroquine was done by 3 eye-doctors. who didn't treat COVID, a previous one had only15 patients and reached no conclusions, but was billed as "proof" it didn't work. The Lancet study is more likely to be useful, but I haven't read it yet.]

In short, while science should be a guiding light, it too can mislead, even when it's authors are unbiased. You need to look at who did the study,,how it was done, did it have blinded controls, and was it a large enough sample size to reach a conclusion. Then, are there other well done studies that came to different conclusions? [not an unusual occurrence] So, using science isn't an easy task, and it's one that less than a percentage or two of people will undertake. But, if you can find good science, it is the best guidance available. Most of the time, a healthy dose of skepticism and a bit of logic should supplement your assessment of any "science" you get from a politician.

[Daryl DeArman]

The only scientists that disagree are those that are paid to do so, and that's 3% of the total.

You are speaking of the human impact on climate change. I was speaking to global warming.

I'm certain there is a significant number of climatologists who agree/disagree only because their research is being funded by those who are supporting their anticipated conclusions.

Regardless of the various motives, as both sides have them, it reinforces my statement that despite all the data on global warming we still don't have consensus from experts in the field. As well as even when we do have consensus, we still don't agree on the proper course of action.

[swiftdrivr]

The only scientists that disagree are those that are paid to do so, and that's 3% of the total.

As Daryl pointed out, it's professionally risky to oppose a militant religion. Scientist live off grant money. Also, most of these scientist were "educated" in an educational system that strongly opposed studying opposing [conservative] viewpoints. America and European centers of "higher learning" became centers of higher indoctrination decades ago. We have kids now who are so indoctrinated that they march against freedom of speech. They physically attack people who pass out leaflets because they are violently opposed to ever hearing anything that might challenge their current beliefs. Truth doesn't exactly thrive under these conditions. The "scientific evaluation" waters are so muddled now, I doubt anyone is likely to ever prove man-made climate change exist, much less prove a solution. And that doesn't even begin to touch on the fact that China and India aren't likely to play along, so a solution is probably impossible to implement, even if it existed.

As an aside, I think we'd be much wiser to concentrate on water pollution. It is important to feed the world, it is something we can actually do something about, isn't as politicized [yet], and after all, the ocean is going to be in my back yard soon [or so they keep telling me, yet Hwy A1A is still right where I left it when I was a kid]

[FVRacer21]

Disclaimer - my son is Assistant Professor of Meteorology and Climate Dynamics at Penn State University. This is his biography:

Prior to arriving at Penn State, I was a Project Scientist jointly in the Climate and Global Dynamics and Mesoscale and Microscale Meteorology laboratories at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) after two years as an Advanced Study Program (ASP) postdoctoral fellow. I completed my Ph.D. in Atmospheric Science at the University of Michigan under Christiane Jablonowski after receiving an M.S. in Environmental Engineering while working with Tami Bond at the University of Illinois. My undergraduate degree is also in Atmospheric Science from Cornell University. Of course, I am still a native New Englander at heart, having grown up in rural Connecticut.

The last two degrees were on his own dime (saved my racing budget). He writes code predicting the path of hurricanes (grew up on the Weather Channel and Speed) that just one line would take me weeks to dissect (I have forgotten most all of my Calculus - even though I got 4.0 in the class…)

Science is why planes fly, drugs can act within minutes of being introduced in your body (anesthesiology blows me away) and why they can make a tire that goes away after 15 laps of a Grand Prix. Having a son who became a professor has been an education for me, just as it was when my other son became a Marine. (Thanks to all who served on this Memorial Day).

I am still a numbers Geek and have been delving into the testing procedure. It helps that my wife is a Nurse who is as I write this swabbing patients for Covid. The way I look at it - pure science is not political any more than driving a race car is political. You do the best with the facts and circumstances that you have and you come to a conclusion (finish) The peer review is your other competitors, the result is your finishing position, what you learn and where you go from there is your next race. Why studies are allowed to be released BEFORE being peer reviewed is a mystery to me - that can be political.

I will put that it is not pure science but the science of mathematics that is important here - statistical analysis and probability theory. Here is where the saying “Figures don’t lie, but liars figure” comes in. If you don’t understand what the weatherman really means when he says “there is a 60% chance of rain today” then how would you know how to dress? If a statistician says "if you open up on this day there is a 80% chance you will end up with an RT number above 1 and start to overwhelm your hospitals"; if you don’t know how to interpret it, how can you make decisions?

This thread started out as information as how the virus spreads - about 3 months into the pandemic here in the US, we are starting to hone in on things as we get information. Science is a process, not a crystal ball. I am afraid that we will find out that some of the early decisions (like mask usage) might have been done for political and economic reasons (shortages of masks for health care providers and not trying to cause mass panic) rather than scientific reasons. I believe now that masks on Mass Transit in NYC would have had more of an impact as social distancing to prevent the spread. And they were doing in in China in early March.....

To use comedy to make a point I invite people to watch this - Dara O'Briain: Science doesn't know everything and for the last joke see this.

ChrisZ

[TimH]

Something Daryl hints at but didn't emphasize enough is that even with perfect data on Covid-19, the proper way forward is going to vary by location, and even by individual person. Since reducing risk to zero is clearly intolerable for everyone, the choice of risk/benefit ratio can be highly personal.

[swiftdrivr]

Dara O'Briain is great. Thanks for that!

[FVRacer21]

....... Scientists live off grant money. Also, most of these scientists were "educated" in an educational system that strongly opposed studying opposing [conservative] viewpoints. America and European centers of "higher learning" became centers of higher indoctrination decades ago. We have kids now who are so indoctrinated that they march against freedom of speech. They physically attack people who pass out leaflets because they are violently opposed to ever hearing anything that might challenge their current beliefs. Truth doesn't exactly thrive under these conditions. The "scientific evaluation" waters are so muddled now, I doubt anyone is likely to ever prove man-made climate change exist, much less prove a solution. And that doesn't even begin to touch on the fact that China and India aren't likely to play along, so a solution is probably impossible to implement, even if it existed.


As an aside, I think we'd be much wiser to concentrate on water pollution. It is important to feed the world, it is something we can actually do something about, isn't as politicized [yet], and after all, the ocean is going to be in my back yard soon [or so they keep telling me, yet Hwy A1A is still right where I left it when I was a kid]

Several points - scientists are not getting rich off of grant money - my son works at the same college as Michael Mann, and if you want to get rich - jump into reality TV as there is much more money to be made there. There is tenure and some other perks, and professors are paid well (although if kids don't come back to college this year, the professors at many colleges - including state colleges - are being told of substantial pay cuts) but none are getting 7 figure salaries - that is for the sports coaches.....


The college kids that are protesting are not the science and mathematics students, but the liberal arts kids. The S & M ( bad acronym ) kids are putting in 100 of hours per week just trying to keep up with the technology changes.


Your point on water is true, but I believe in a different way. Rather than building oil pipelines, for economic reasons) we should be building water pipelines, as climate change (man made or not) can result in rolling droughts in one place with an excess of water in others. If a drought hits our farmland what do you do? You can move a factory pretty quick, but how do you move farmland? Anyone in California would welcome water from Michigan, and I am sure they would be glad to give it to them! Here is one man's take on the future of water.


Water is politicized - Trump opens floodgates, and acrimony swamps Calif. Now it may seem like a simple case of people vs endangered species, but it also might be Federal vs States rights, among others. Look at Flint Michigan or the billions spent on the New York City Water Tunnel No. 3.


Everything is politics: “Politics is the set of activities that are associated with the governance of a country, state or area. It involves making decisions that apply to groups of members and achieving and exercising positions of governance—organized control over a human community. Even the TV show you and your wife will watch tonight (or not).


ChrisZ

[swiftdrivr]

Several points - scientists are not getting rich off of grant money -


The college kids that are protesting are not the science and mathematics students, but the liberal arts kids. The S & M ( bad acronym ) kids are putting in 100 of hours per week just trying to keep up with the technology changes.



Water is politicized - Trump opens floodgates, and acrimony swamps Calif. Now it may seem like a simple case of people vs endangered species, but it also might be Federal vs States rights, among others. Look at Flint Michigan or the billions spent on the New York City Water Tunnel No. 3.


Everything is politics:


ChrisZ

I meant that funding for studies comes from grants, and grants are frequently given by people with a motive.

Plenty of politically biased scientist out there, but agree, certainly not like the liberal arts majors

Agree, just not as toxic, or futile, as climate change. We can do a lot about water. We can't effectively do anything, except divide America, concerning climate change.

sadly, this is true

BTW: Quote from the Lancet article.

"Nevertheless, a cause-and-effect relationship between drug therapy and survival should not be inferred."

The study is concerning, but certainly not conclusive. Occurrence of arrhythmia [abnormal heart beat] wasn't linked to outcome, no dosage control or even documentation that I saw, etc., lots of other factors. The jury is still out, but still a concerning study. Not a desirable result for people who desperately need an effective treatment.

[Hardingfv32]

Maybe a bit over simplified. But it seems to me, except for the military, that conservatives never spend money on anything that does not have the possibility of financial gain. Always about preserving their assets.

Makes me question their positions on most subjects. Conservatives favor personal benefit over general public welfare.

Brian

[swiftdrivr]

Maybe a bit over simplified. But it seems to me, except for the military, that conservatives never spend money on anything that does not have the possibility of financial gain. Always about preserving their assets.

Makes me question their positions on most subjects. Conservatives favor personal benefit over general public welfare.

Brian

Second amendment rights and freedom of speech seem to leap to my mind [as do a few less polite responses]

[FVRacer21]

When pandemic first hit, my concern was for my 93 year old mother, who had just come through months of surgery to be healthier that in years. We were anticipating her taking a trip to see her great grandson at his house for his 2nd birthday - then the lock-down.

My sisters are her guardians and when the stories of Hydroxychloroquine first came out I tried to separate the politics from the science. There was a doctor there who was using it, not with the azithromycin (my mother has heart conditions that would preclude that), but with another medicine. At that point it was the wild west - it was important to know everything that was out there and bring up all alternatives if the need arose. Now with the benefit of time, I would not recommend it, but on the other hand, would not object if her doctor thought it had some benefit (my mother is doing well in isolation btw and learning how to use Skype.....).

Even the concept of Intubation is being debated as to it's benefits. The members of ApexSpeed I would say, are above the average as far as education - how is the average person dealing with this?

I take Pepcid to control heartburn - I was taking Zantac before that got recalled. Someone says Pepcid might help and poof! The shelves are cleared. Hopefully I have enough to last when get the shelves restocked.... Right now everything is reactionary - but we need to be talking to our doctors, not the politicians.

BTW - separate topic - I have a GP and at least 6 specialists I see - and none of them talk to each other. Does anyone else not see this a s a problem?

ChrisZ

[TimH]

Conservatives favor personal benefit over general public welfare.

Makes me want to say "Progressives favor telling other people what's good for them."

[TimH]

BTW - separate topic - I have a GP and at least 6 specialists I see - and none of them talk to each other. Does anyone else not see this a s a problem?

Huge problem. Feds mandated electronic records as a solution, but since none of *them* can talk to each other we now get multipage printouts to communicate the simplest message. Whoever finds a good solution will advance medicine immeasurably.

[Daryl DeArman]

Several points - scientists are not getting rich off of grant money

Nobody said they were getting rich. They are making a living because of that grant money. My son-in-law is a grant writer for a major State University. That grant money goes away when your findings don't support the check-writers agenda/ideology.

[swiftdrivr]

I work in the medical system I use for care, and I've had appointments made for me, with another MD, without either office involved bothering to INFORM ME. Communication needs, and privacy needs / laws, are frequently at odds and difficult to make work. Our EMRs [Electronic Medical Records] are helping in some areas, and will get better with time. Integration will ease some of the issues, but then, this will make security harder, as a crack in your firewall becomes a crack in ours. Nothing is free.

[Daryl DeArman]

Huge problem. Feds mandated electronic records as a solution, but since none of *them* can talk to each other we now get multipage printouts to communicate the simplest message. Whoever finds a good solution will advance medicine immeasurably.

Give EPIC a chance. . .


Disclosure: my wife is an EPIC certified Senior PM for a major trauma center.

[FVRacer21]

Give EPIC a chance. . .


Disclosure: my wife is an EPIC certified Senior PM for a major trauma center.

My wife had 3 months training when they switched over to EPIC - most people I spoke to like it - once you get past the learning phase.

People who write code for these programs should spend 2 years DOING the job they are writing for. This goes for CRM and Accounting software.

At work (not medical) I have to teach people how to save files and find them later - and I am NOT IT.

I love computers but......... AI will either be our salvation or our master.....(No - I am not talking to you SIRI....)


ChrisZ

[swiftdrivr]

..(No - I am not talking to you SIRI....)

ChrisZ

But was SIRI listening anyway?

[Daryl DeArman]

To use comedy to make a point I invite people to watch this - Dara O'Briain: Science doesn't know everything

conservatives never spend money on anything that does not have the possibility of financial gain. Always about preserving their assets. Makes me question their positions on most subjects. Conservatives favor personal benefit over general public welfare.

Get in the sack Brian!

[gt250]

I take Pepcid to control heartburn

ChrisZ

Have you ever tried Apple Cider Vinegar? I haven't had heartburn for 15 years since I started. Many others I've recommended this to agree. Got to be the right kind though.