Answer the questions that have been present to you.

I dropped the font problem because there was no solution found, other than to use print view. Moved on.

I don't need to discuss firearms. I joined because of the 2006 flu threat; this was & is an excellent resource for the medical & biological issues. Its going off the rails with the political speculation.

An ELISA antibody test
 

Is this sort of thing likely to be implementable soon enough to be useful for epidemiology?

preprint:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....17.20037713v1


A serological assay to detect SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion in humans
Fatima Amanat, et al
Posted March 18, 2020
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.17.20037713

article about the subject:
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020...virus-pandemic

1) You have to wait for the peer review. That's the way SCIENCE works. Maybe 5 papers will refute it.

2) So? Can you document this has happened in this instance? Ad-hominum arguments add nothing of value.

OK now we can start to have discussions on things you are seemingly defunct on understanding that is more than just "gut" feelings but recognition of patterns on geo political issues and more importantly global economics impact on them. Again I am going to say that the real irresponsible actions is parroting numbers and statistics of a virus that most places are not actually testing for and cannot know simply cannot with any certainty discern the symptoms from the other coronaviruses in which are in season as we speak. SO how accurate are the numbers that are being used to extrapolate the effects if it??? You are also speaking with people on this site with extensive knowledge in PSYOP type principles such as social movement theory and the mediums used to create the desired affects....to you it may sound like "gut" to us it is another language easily recognized....and some of us with extensive education in sciences or multiple contacts whom are deeply involved with such subjects.

But being the highly principled scientist you seem to tout yourself as do you disagree with the Molecular Biologists/virologist/infectious disease types researching viruses they do not yet understand or some countries use of them as a cheap alternative to full scale ground or economic warfare? what you seem to suggest is research done by these types is not of a forward thinking discovery and prevention but of the knee jerk reactionary type....I know a few in the field who scoff at the reactionary accusation not that it does not happen but the constant research and seeking is a continuum as I understand it. So again who is the irresponsible ones creating panic those that are extrapolating data from partial information and telling people that this virus is 10x??? more deadly or those that are looking at a declared enemy of the U.S. and seeing that methodology and timing as suspect? it seems educated people would and could see the economic impact of overreactions by government officials as being far more destructive for people living check by check and those who depend on medications and controlled diets etc......and finally loss of liberty.

There are medical sections on this website for those wishing to stay closer to just the science and not the causal factors that enabled this irrational response. But in the general thread we are going to link things together for a broader understanding of what is actually going on.

Well you asked:

I merely offered you examples of how the truth is twisted and used for personal and ideological gain. That is not an attack, that is pointing out that is a possibility.


As for your claim the topic going off the rails with speculation. IMO, no one has a handle on how this started. The idea of a intentional release is no more speculative than it was accidental.

One thing that is becoming abundantly clear is China lied.

So your hypothesis is that its not a pandemic but is a "society disrupting event" due to ... inept / scheming politicians? I think that is a low probability scenario, and I am insuring myself against the pandemic event.

I just looked again at the TMC-14 section and there are about 3 posts this year. None anything to do with SARS-COVID-2.

I repeat my opinion that the medical and political aspects would be easier to follow in separate threads.

Article on expedient mask strategies
 

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/927259#vp_1

One hospital is wearing expedient cloth over N95 masks so they can be used longer.

References to several past studies on the issue -- they have mixed results.

IMO sociologically, goverment should be urging people to wear home made masks starting last week. People are just in denial.

Dude, just reading your posts you read like you are hyperventilating. Not posting in sub-forums is common here. Most of us have been here a long time and the General Discussion has worked for us. BUT, I'd like to know a little bit more about you. Can you please explain what a "degreed scientific background; HAZWOPPER" is?

Evidence for fecal load 12 days after recovery
 

My takaway is to avoid breathing the air in public restrooms, and maybe narrow hallways adjacent.

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/926856#vp_2

COMMENTARY
Fecal Evidence of COVID-19 Raises Transmission Concerns
David A. Johnson, MD
March 18, 2020

New studies are expanding our understanding of the possible fecal transmission of COVID-19. Assessment by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) has provided evidence of virus in the stool and the oropharynx outside the nasopharynx and respiratory tract.

Virus in the stool may be evident on presentation and last throughout the course of illness resolution for up to 12 days after the respiratory virus evidence is gone.

When I say "virus evidence," it's because it does not necessarily correspond to infectivity. Studies from fecal transmission to infectivity have yet to be done. However, it's certainly suggestive that the virus is intact, at least as far as how the PCR assay for the respiratory definition is now being applied the same way for stool.

Why Possible Fecal Transmission Is Important

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that after two negative respiratory tests separated by ≥ 24 hours, patients can be dismissed from having transmissibility infection risk for COVID-19.

But we now know that these stools may lag up to 12 days after. In fact, in one of the most recent studies looking at 73 patients, approximately 24% remained positive in their stool for evidence of virus, though not necessarily infection, after showing negative in respiratory samples.

When we consider other disease states with fecal-oral transmission, the classic example that comes to mind is Clostridium difficile. We tell patients with C difficile–positive stool that when they use and flush the toilet, they can aerosolize these spores, which may then deposit on the surface areas in their bathroom.
...

The potential for fecal transmissibility has yet to be defined, but we know from a recent study that the virus has been evident in the stool of just over 50% of patients and remains in nearly 25% otherwise clear of respiratory evidence of virus.

Hmm, haven't looked at that in years. Hazardous Waste Operations Personnel.
I'll edit it a bit.

They try to estimate mortality by deaths on a given day vs number of cases on the day of infection (in the past). They used 14 days in the past. The number "earlier" in time is over 20%, and decays steadily towards the WHO cumulative mortality rate of 5.6%

So my takaway is that we might see a huge mortality rate pretty soon. Hopefully the government will be ahead of that and explain this sort of curve so its not a surprise.

Better yet, if they can demonstrate the upwards curve is leading to that rate. Unless the public changes its behavior.

Real estimates of mortality following COVID-19 infection
David Baud et al
12MAR20 -- so maybe a bit dated

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...195-X/fulltext

EDIT: a followup post by the guy Mugwump recommended recently touches on the same "convergence" theme:

https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coron...e-f4d3d9cd99ca

SNIP
The two ways you can calculate the fatality rate is Deaths/Total Cases and Death/Closed Cases. The first one is likely to be an underestimate, because lots of open cases can still end up in death. The second is an overestimate, because it’s likely that deaths are closed quicker than recoveries.

What I did was look at how both evolve over time. Both of these numbers will converge to the same result once all cases are closed, so if you project past trends to the future, you can make a guess on what the final fatality rate will be.

This is what you see in the data. China’s fatality rate is now between 3.6% and 6.1%. If you project that in the future, it looks like it converges towards ~3.8%-4%. This is double the current estimate, and 30 times worse than the flu.

It is made up of two completely different realities though: Hubei and the rest of China.

Hubei’s fatality rate will probably converge towards 4.8%. Meanwhile, for the rest of China, it will likely converge to ~0.9%: SNIP

Edit again: see his Chart 12; it matches the high initial death rate of the first article. So - the system gets overwhelmed very very very early.

ITB, your a nasty fuck. PSM asked you a direct question, and your next post is on fecal matter. That bullshit is not lost on me, nor is your continued passive aggressive attitude. So why are you here?

Ya’ll leave InTheBlack and others some leeway. These are trying times, patience is wearing thin and emotions running high. Everybody just step back and take a deep breath before posting negative attacks on each other.

And if you can’t take a deep breath call your doctor to report your medical condition to see you too have the virus.

ITB do as Penn asked or there will be consequences.

Great advice, if not followed I’ll lock the tread for 24 hours. But I do want to see ITB’s response.