Coronavirus

[pioneer98]

I haven't been following the whole discussion but this graph illustrates really well why you are supposed to quarantine until you get test results. I know that's inconvenient. OH WELL.

Whatever plan we put forward, EVERYONE has to agree to stick to it or it will fail. If we can't get everyone to wear masks, I'm not sure how we will get everyone to test themselves daily.

The time to really deploy testing on a mass scale was back in like May/early June when we shut down the economy and actually bent the curve slightly before reopening ruined everything.

I think this virus will just rage for a couple years until most vulnerable people are dead. The people still living will get something like a flu shot that will help reduce it more, and we will just live with it the rest of our lives at some level like we do the flu.

[Joe Shlabotnik]

Yeah, at this point it seems so prevalent in America, maybe it's time to take the masks off, prepare the mass graves, and wait for herd immunity.

Darwin, take me away!

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

Cheap lower sensitivity tests seem like such an incredible no brainer, that I can’t understand why we’re not doing it. Just pure regulatory incompetence?

To a lot of people, yeah, it's that simple. To the medical profession....eh, not so much. Below is a full explanation, as I understand it, as to why it's not happening, quickly at least.

tl;dr: A 'better' test exists, doctors are often times too by the book, and the FDA are hesitant to relinquish power and/or move away from 'perfection'.

...

To re-iterate what I said a few pages back, and to expand even further, there was a study released by the NYU school of medicine back in Aprilish that looked at the antigen testing that required a machine (I'll get back to this machine in a bit). And, that study found it to be only 50% accurate. So, that sounds bad. And, at the time, I don't think the study released the raw data that has since been released (I think, I know medcram had it in the video I posted a few pages ago). Of course, at 50% accuracy, well, that's a pretty worthless test and the medical community collectively took a big dookie on the antigen tests.

However, when the data was analyzed (according to Dr. Mina) it showed the antigen test wasn't wrong a random 50% of the time. It just wasn't as sensitive. And, there's a decently long (weekish) period on the tail end of the infection where dead (according to Fauci) viral RNA is detectable. So there were a bunch of results where PCR was picking up dead or minuscule RNA but the antigen test did not.

But, like trying to correct an incorrect story that's gone viral, it's damn near impossible. The decision has been made by the med. community, and the issue is settled. I brought this up to a dr. in a breakfast club I'm in and he's like...yeah, the antigen test is wrong 49% of the time quoting the study NYU released. Basically if you hear anyone say its wrong 50% of the time, it comes from that NYU study. When trying to explain it to him, it became apparent the guy just didn't care because the decision has already been made. Case closed.

And to make matters worse, this isn't a case like therapeutics where there isn't a viable solution as of yet. The RT-PCR test exists. It's known to work. It's reliable. It's approved. Infrastructure to run the tests exists. It's incredibly sensitive. For these reasons, it's a better test than the antigen test. In reality, it's a perfect test, money and time be damned. And few doctors care about money/time/logistics of their patients. So...why even bother talking about antigen tests (that are only right 50% of the time in their minds).

Everyone in the medical community that I've talked to about it, including my loving, beautiful, incredibly intelligent but often [expletive] bull headed wife makes essentially the argument I just recapped. Further, I've come to find out very quickly, the medical community is kind of like the opposite of critical thinkers. They're often times so 'in the box' it's maddening. "Well, the book says A so the answer is A." That could be a separate dissertation. But, suffice to say, they know the PCR tests work and they have a study saying antigen testing doesn't. There's precisely zero room for nuance in these conversations. PCR is better and approved. Antigen is worse and not approved. Open/shut case.

Que the time inconvenience and the FDA. Sufficient push has been made about the need for immediate testing but equally important a different network of testing all together since the PCR infrastructure is being overwhelmed. So, they allowed rapid testing so long as it was 90% as sensitive as the PCR test.

This part is a bit speculative because I can't find the exact numbers. But, suffice to say the PCR detects CT values (inverse to viral load) into the lower to mid 40s. According to Fauci, any CT value more than 36/37 can be interpreted as dead virus being detected. So PCR is already too [expletive] sensitve. Perfect my ass. A little background on why CT values are inverse to viral load. The RT-PCR tests, again from my understanding, heats up and cools down and heats up and cools down the sample. Each time it heats/cools is considered a cycle and the viral rna replicates each cycle. So, a CT (cyclical threshold) value of 40 means the virus has been doubled 40 times before its detectable. From my understanding, but pretty sure that's right.

Regardless, by requiring antigen testing to be 90% as sensitive a PCR, they're more/less requiring the test to detect dead virus....which is obviously absurd likely coming from some in the box thinking.

Back to the machines that I said I'd get back to. In order to get to that level of sensitivity, you can basically take the antigen test, add more detection stuff to the strip (antibodies I think) and run it as normal, and in order to detect even the faintest of signal, the strip can be put in a machine that has better vision than the human eye capable of detecting even the faintest of signal. So, from my understanding, this test is little more than spitting on a strip and then looking at it under a microscope and they only look at it under a microscope (or have the machine do it) to increase the sensitivity as high as possible. But, it also and probably more importantly doubles as a way to ensure the samples are collected by med. profs. by requiring it to be ran through a machine and can be tracked/counted.

Which brings me to my last point. The FDA guards power for the medical community like a damn lioness protects a dead zebra from hyenas. For example, why is it necessary to have a Rx for insulin? Pure insanity, but i digress. As a general rule, the FDA treats the nation like its full of complete morons. Maybe for good reason, maybe not. But, but, but. On top of all the stuff I said earlier about PCR being 'better' there is also this. Antigen tests aren't fool proof. You can't just lick your lips, get a little moisture, and give a little spittle coming from in between the teeth as the sample. It needs to be, well, a loogie or a sufficient volume of spit at least. Or a nasal swab. Is it possible to cheat the antigen test if one were so inclined? Probably. So, they'll be able to hide behind that as well. And, if people are cheating the test, that can put more people in danger because these cheaters will be allowed onto airplanes or into school or whatever. Blah blah blah. I mean they already are, but whatever.

Sorry for the long explanation. But, from my understanding, that's the reason.

Having said all that, that's why I would probably avoid the country trying to even get this approved as a diagnostic test but simply make it available to the general public with education. Allow restaurants to require patrons to show up, take a test, and wait for the results before coming. Have students from each class spit into a bowl (located outside) on their way into the classroom. Mass test the entire class before starting the day. Let employers test their employees.

From what I understand, treating it like that instead of as a pure diagnostic exam would allow the FDA to treat it more like a vitamin or supplement and it wouldn't have the same stringent requirements (90% as sensitive as the PCR) requiring labs/machines to get involved.

But, yeah, from a purely logical point of view, it's all insane and this should be adopted and mass distributed ASAP. Maybe we'll figure it out in a year or two when a few more studies are published showing how well it could have worked.

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

Yeah, at this point it seems so prevalent in America, maybe it's time to take the masks off, prepare the mass graves, and wait for herd immunity.

Darwin, take me away!

Yep. It was written in stone we were headed this way sometime around Memorial Day or a few weeks before. I made a thread and everything about things you can do to avoid death though, so there’s that.

Ahh [expletive] it I’ll just say it here. Went into work earlier because the family fell asleep at 9 and there was a hole in my heart where the cards cubs game should have been. So...work I guess. But then got home at like 1:30 and decided to have a few bud light seltzer black cherry things I picked up for the lake tomorrow where we go to catch covid.

Anyway, they’re pretty good. And if that doesn’t qualify me as a guy capable of keeping you from remaining asymptomatic when you eventually catch covid, nothing will.

So here goes.

Take a multi-vitamin with more than 100% vitamin d. Take vitamin C. If you’re older or darker skinned take a vitamin d supplement. Take 600 mg of nac, take a zinc supplement maybe 50 mg, take a quercetin supplement. Don’t drink or eat high fructose corn syrup, exercise, sleep (unlike me lulz), eats fruits and veggies, and relax.

If you wanna drop one, drop nac but ask for it if you end up in the hospital. Or just ask for glutathione.

In the end, that may not work. You may die. But that’s the best advice I’ve heard after spending way too much time researching the topic. It costs [expletive] all of $20/month. It’s essentially a recipe to healthy living with 2 supplements and an element. And there’s as much science behind it as there is anything else out there. This obv isn’t a cure or preventative nor medical advice. Just a summation of facts.



If we lose a grber to covid I’m going to be really upset.

[Arthur Dent]

Allow restaurants to require patrons to show up, take a test, and wait for the results before coming. Have students from each class spit into a bowl (located outside) on their way into the classroom. Mass test the entire class before starting the day. Let employers test their employees.

Why not do this as a well controlled study to prove the practical effectiveness? Pick some kind of relatively large and susceptible essential business and do these tests on every employee professionally daily. Should be able to show that at least some good fraction of infections can be caught and contained. And this will be relative to a status quo where you can’t get tested at all until after you’re contagious and won’t get a result for days making the whole thing almost completely useless.

If you can show practical effectiveness in a pilot program, that ought to be able to reopen the “closed” issue. And the more widespread such testing is deployed, the less important the lower accuracy becomes.

[Arthur Dent]

Yeah, at this point it seems so prevalent in America, maybe it's time to take the masks off, prepare the mass graves, and wait for herd immunity.

Darwin, take me away!

America’s intense death drive is weird. This is not an unsolvable problem!

[heyzeus]

Yeah, at this point it seems so prevalent in America, maybe it's time to take the masks off, prepare the mass graves, and wait for herd immunity.

Darwin, take me away!

America’s intense death drive is weird. This is not an unsolvable problem!

[youtube]https://youtu.be/lOTyUfOHgas[/youtube]

[IMADreamer]

Yeah, at this point it seems so prevalent in America, maybe it's time to take the masks off, prepare the mass graves, and wait for herd immunity.

Darwin, take me away!

Yep. It was written in stone we were headed this way sometime around Memorial Day or a few weeks before. I made a thread and everything about things you can do to avoid death though, so there’s that.

Ahh [expletive] it I’ll just say it here. Went into work earlier because the family fell asleep at 9 and there was a hole in my heart where the cards cubs game should have been. So...work I guess. But then got home at like 1:30 and decided to have a few bud light seltzer black cherry things I picked up for the lake tomorrow where we go to catch covid.

Anyway, they’re pretty good. And if that doesn’t qualify me as a guy capable of keeping you from remaining asymptomatic when you eventually catch covid, nothing will.

So here goes.

Take a multi-vitamin with more than 100% vitamin d. Take vitamin C. If you’re older or darker skinned take a vitamin d supplement. Take 600 mg of nac, take a zinc supplement maybe 50 mg, take a quercetin supplement. Don’t drink or eat high fructose corn syrup, exercise, sleep (unlike me lulz), eats fruits and veggies, and relax.

If you wanna drop one, drop nac but ask for it if you end up in the hospital. Or just ask for glutathione.

In the end, that may not work. You may die. But that’s the best advice I’ve heard after spending way too much time researching the topic. It costs [expletive] all of $20/month. It’s essentially a recipe to healthy living with 2 supplements and an element. And there’s as much science behind it as there is anything else out there. This obv isn’t a cure or preventative nor medical advice. Just a summation of facts.



If we lose a grber to covid I’m going to be really upset.

I've always wondered about the effectiveness of multi vitamins because I once had a medical professional say the body basically doesn't absorb any of it, but with that said I've taken one for the better part of 20 years now. I'm don't know if it's connected but I rarely get sick. I can probably count on one hand how many times I've had more than a minor cold in that time span. It's a generic brand too. So maybe it helps. I've never worried about vitamin D because I'm outside all the time, but my wife has been taking a supplement since around May.

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

Allow restaurants to require patrons to show up, take a test, and wait for the results before coming. Have students from each class spit into a bowl (located outside) on their way into the classroom. Mass test the entire class before starting the day. Let employers test their employees.

Why not do this as a well controlled study to prove the practical effectiveness? Pick some kind of relatively large and susceptible essential business and do these tests on every employee professionally daily. Should be able to show that at least some good fraction of infections can be caught and contained. And this will be relative to a status quo where you can’t get tested at all until after you’re contagious and won’t get a result for days making the whole thing almost completely useless.

If you can show practical effectiveness in a pilot program, that ought to be able to reopen the “closed” issue. And the more widespread such testing is deployed, the less important the lower accuracy becomes.

Hadn't thought of that. Just thinking out loud, I guess the main question would be how would you set the study up? Obviously there is some retrospective data for a few places like plants, prisons, and cruise ships where they went in and tested everyone after an outbreak. And, that could possibly be used as the control. In order to do a comparative study though, wouldn't you need to infect someone and have them then go to work? There are a lot of prisons, plants, etc that without rapid tests have still managed to not have outbreaks. So, unless you're going to induce an outbreak, those non-infected prisons, platns, etc would have to be a part of the control. And, what would you use as the endpoints of the study? If the goal is to show less spread, including the places that didn't have outbreaks and didn't test is going to really skew the results because, well, if there's no testing then there's no cases even though we know that's not necessarily true.

Really, the easiest side by side comparison would be schools within the same district where one school gets the testing and the other one doesn't, but....good luck trying to set something like that up. The outcry would be absolutely massive.

It seems like a great idea, just not sure about the logistics. But, then again, I'm not in that business so perhaps its easier than I make it out to be.

[Arthur Dent]

I’d have to defer to people who know how to do good study design, but the problems you point out are basically the same ones faced in phase III vaccine trials. In those trials, some are vaccinated while other get a placebo, and they just go about their lives while you wait to see who happens to get infected through normal happenstance. I think the answer largely involves having to use a fairly large sample size to get enough statistical power. This is one of the reasons human challenge trials, where you deliberately infect vaccinated individuals, have been proposed.

The ethical case for a careful human challenge vaccine trial has some merit because the vaccine will already be proven to have a reasonable chance of working, and you can test (people you hope to be) low risk individuals while ensuring no further spread. Obviously, none of that applies starting an outbreak in the unprotected public.

Anyway, the costs of this disease running wild are enormous, so it’s hard for me to imagine the investment here would be too high even if the study requires tens of thousands of participants to work. The payoff of identifying a significant fraction of cases early would be enormous.