Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[MookieMonstah]

Just now, Xenos said:

With a vaccine or without? It’s too early to tell right now because there are not more people having this issue. So hopefully it is just an outlier. But it’s something to keep an eye on.

Without

[Xenos]

49 minutes ago, MookieMonstah said:

Without

Hopefully it will be another bullet against trying to do herd immunity without a vaccine then. 

[-Hope-]

4 hours ago, Xenos said:

Hopefully it will be another bullet against trying to do herd immunity without a vaccine then. 

with this in mind, question for @ramssuperbowl99 and the Science Knowers in here- since we don't know how long immunity conferred by infection lasts, and we also don't know how long immunity conferred by a vaccine will last, isn't there a risk of post-vaccine outbreaks when it starts wearing off? i was wondering whether there would be like, anticipatory booster shots or something, but i don't know how people would know when to administer them.

[ramssuperbowl99]

3 hours ago, -Hope- said:

with this in mind, question for @ramssuperbowl99 and the Science Knowers in here- since we don't know how long immunity conferred by infection lasts, and we also don't know how long immunity conferred by a vaccine will last, isn't there a risk of post-vaccine outbreaks when it starts wearing off? i was wondering whether there would be like, anticipatory booster shots or something, but i don't know how people would know when to administer them.

I am highly skeptical that re-infection is real. The general idea goes against most of what we know with strong immune responses to have someone get infected with a virus, develop a strong immune response, and then get infected with a virus again so quickly. And the reports of people who tested positive getting COVID later or having antibody tests go positive, then negative could easily be explained by a gap in the antibody assays we use. How these assays work is by binding, and binding in the biology world is caused by molecule shape, charge, and oily-ness. So, it stands to reason that if you have 2 very similar viruses with 2 very similar spike proteins, say, COVID and SARS, the immune system may generate antibodies to bind to that spike protein that are so similar they would each also bind to the part of the assay that detects COVID antibodies. Which means that in the general population, an immune response from SARS back in 2003 may trigger a weak, false positive COVID immunity that might be tough to consistently detect since SARS was 17 years ago, and even though these antibodies are likely able to bind to both SARS and COVID, could be weak enough to not stop a real COVID infection.

I'm not saying it's impossible, but there needs to be stronger data showing re-infection before I'm going to consider it anything but a minor issue in the antibody testing methods.

(And also, no, I don't think this calls into question the general status of the antibody tests. SARS didn't infect enough of the population and this is a known potential limitation of this type of test.)

Edited July 19, 2020 by ramssuperbowl99

[seriously27]

20 hours ago, Zukhyubern said:

This idea that working-class people will suddenly want to just sit on their butts all day and rake in unemployment is absurd. People want to have meaningful work, that pays a living wage and gives them the option for benefits. We are in a pandemic right now, helloooo...It says more about how we value workers in this country that many working-class jobs do NOT provide benefits or a living wage that should be alarming. It is shocking to me that mostly conservative lawmakers take issue with the fact that people would rather stay safe and have added financial security than put themselves in harm's way just for the sake of the economy. And to think that we would cut off the little safety net that they've provided just to force people into that situation instead of doing something that keeps people safe and will ultimately prove beneficial for the economy blows my mind. Workers are simply expendable to most of these people. 

I agree with this to an extent, the problem arises from the fact that this unemployment amount is more than some people make at the jobs they had before the shutdown. This is what is causing a lot of people to not want to go back to work. People are not dumb....why would they go back to a job making less money than they are making not going to work? It's honestly smarter to say on UI if they can. I can't find any blame for that because there isn't any incentive to not. Go back to my minimum wage job making 300 a week or stay on UI and make 600? I don't blame any of them. Which is the problem with that system. It's a much smaller tighrope than many people are making it out to be. I don't tink shutting it down is the answer but I also don't think continuing to pay that amount each week is the answer either. 

When an essential grocery employee is taking home 300 a week because he has to work during this pandemic and someone who lost their job is making double that.....there is a much much bigger problem. 

[seriously27]

4 hours ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

I am highly skeptical that re-infection is real. The general idea goes against most of what we know with strong immune responses to have someone get infected with a virus, develop a strong immune response, and then get infected with a virus again so quickly. And the reports of people who tested positive getting COVID later or having antibody tests go positive, then negative could easily be explained by a gap in the antibody assays we use. How these assays work is by binding, and binding in the biology world is caused by molecule shape, charge, and oily-ness. So, it stands to reason that if you have 2 very similar viruses with 2 very similar spike proteins, say, COVID and SARS, the immune system may generate antibodies to bind to that spike protein that are so similar they would each also bind to the part of the assay that detects COVID antibodies. Which means that in the general population, an immune response from SARS back in 2003 may trigger a weak, false positive COVID immunity that might be tough to consistently detect since SARS was 17 years ago, and even though these antibodies are likely able to bind to both SARS and COVID, could be weak enough to not stop a real COVID infection.

I'm not saying it's impossible, but there needs to be stronger data showing re-infection before I'm going to consider it anything but a minor issue in the antibody testing methods.

(And also, no, I don't think this calls into question the general status of the antibody tests. SARS didn't infect enough of the population and this is a known potential limitation of this type of test.)

I think the most likely answer to the reinfection rate/possibility lies in the quality of some of the early testing methods. 

[TVScout]

Might be free:

Need some good news about covid-19? Here are six reasons for optimism.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/07/14/need-some-good-news-about-covid-19-here-are-six-reasons-optimism/?utm_campaign=wp_week_in_ideas&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_ideas

 

Free:

‘Superspreading’ events, triggered by people who may not even know they are infected, propel coronavirus pandemic

Most spread the virus to only a few people — or none at all. But studies show a small percentage transmit it with alarming efficiency.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/07/18/coronavirus-superspreading-events-drive-pandemic/?utm_campaign=wp_for_you&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_personalizedforyou

[Xenos]

39 minutes ago, seriously27 said:

I agree with this to an extent, the problem arises from the fact that this unemployment amount is more than some people make at the jobs they had before the shutdown. This is what is causing a lot of people to not want to go back to work. People are not dumb....why would they go back to a job making less money than they are making not going to work? It's honestly smarter to say on UI if they can. I can't find any blame for that because there isn't any incentive to not. Go back to my minimum wage job making 300 a week or stay on UI and make 600? I don't blame any of them. Which is the problem with that system. It's a much smaller tighrope than many people are making it out to be. I don't tink shutting it down is the answer but I also don't think continuing to pay that amount each week is the answer either. 

When an essential grocery employee is taking home 300 a week because he has to work during this pandemic and someone who lost their job is making double that.....there is a much much bigger problem. 

I would argue that the job recovery rate in May and June show that people do want to go back to work and get the long term security vs staying unemployed even if the current UI amount is higher. Taking away that safety blanket especially during a pandemic would do more harm than good IMO. Of course, I’m a little bias given that I just started my furloughed period. The extra money gives me some peace of mind as I look for another job and pay my bills and daycare. Granted, my current job said the furlough is supposed to end in September. But given the state of the pandemic still, I’m not taking any chances.

Edited July 19, 2020 by Xenos

[Ty21]

I wish we had a murder hornet thread with 669 pages

[Xenos]

12 minutes ago, Tyty said:

I wish we had a murder hornet thread with 669 pages

Murder hornets are so May 2020 😂

[Ty21]

12 minutes ago, Xenos said:

Murder hornets are so May 2020 😂

Could’ve been July 2020 too but y’all dropped the ball 

[BobbyPhil1781]

I understand the source, I understand this might not happen but holy hell, please happen

https://www.indiatvnews.com/news/good-news/coronavirus-vaccine-by-september-oxford-university-trial-on-track-astrazeneca-634907

There's also this as well

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/viral-stun-gun-how-monoclonal-antibodies-can-help-fight-covid-n1234151

Just something..... Give us ******* something to save whatever we can of this year.

Sorry for the (more than likely) hopeless optimistic comments.

[Shanedorf]

7 hours ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

I'm not saying it's impossible, but there needs to be stronger data showing re-infection before I'm going to consider it anything but a minor issue in the antibody testing methods.

Agreed-
And there are differences between humans based on their genetic background, what they've been exposed to, where they live and the general health of their immune system. There are many, many variables here. Older people have been exposed to more things than younger people - however, their immune response isn't as robust. Overall, I concur that while it might happen - it wouldn't be to a huge degree and it might only be related to the quality of the tests
Tests that were rushed into production without the typical rigor and validation from the FDA.

[Shanedorf]

2 hours ago, seriously27 said:

the problem arises from the fact that this unemployment amount is more than some people make at the jobs they had before the shutdown. This is what is causing a lot of people to not want to go back to work. People are not dumb....why would they go back to a job making less money than they are making not going to work?

I have a friend who manages several hotels and she ran into this issue. She was eligible for payroll protection loans, but the money had to be used to pay payroll, it couldn't be used in other areas. Her hotel workers said they'd rather stay home (safely) earning the added unemployment, than come to work, take on added risk and for less money. So she was not able to take advantage of the loan program because she doesn't have enough people to pay. So they opened up the hotel rooms to healthcare workers who didn't want to go home and risk their families getting exposed -  and the state pays her a small stipend for those rooms

Its all such a crazy situation and each one requires a different solution. Many people will prefer going back to their regular jobs, but not all.

Edited July 19, 2020 by Shanedorf

[Zukhyubern]

3 hours ago, seriously27 said:

I agree with this to an extent, the problem arises from the fact that this unemployment amount is more than some people make at the jobs they had before the shutdown. This is what is causing a lot of people to not want to go back to work. People are not dumb....why would they go back to a job making less money than they are making not going to work? It's honestly smarter to say on UI if they can. I can't find any blame for that because there isn't any incentive to not. Go back to my minimum wage job making 300 a week or stay on UI and make 600? I don't blame any of them. Which is the problem with that system. It's a much smaller tighrope than many people are making it out to be. I don't tink shutting it down is the answer but I also don't think continuing to pay that amount each week is the answer either. 

When an essential grocery employee is taking home 300 a week because he has to work during this pandemic and someone who lost their job is making double that.....there is a much much bigger problem. 

Yeah, you're exactly right. Full disclosure: I'm in that boat myself. I'm making about 450 more per week than I was pre-COVID, and because I have asthma and a doctor's note I have no qualms spending most of my time isolated in my apartment right now (I'm in Los Angeles). 

But what is disturbing to me is the very fact that the amount people are making might be significantly higher than their below-living wage from before. This is especially true in Los Angeles. Pundits might point to the fact that suddenly menial workers like myself—I'm a line cook—are suddenly "living large" on roughly $48,000 a year. And many do think that this is an excellent wage! THe truth is that in a city like LA where the cost of living has skyrocketed while wages remain relatively stagnant, it is a sad blessing in disguise to suddenly be making this amount. And it should be a wake-up call to many that the wealth disparity and wage stagnation in this country will just continue to lead to more poverty and ultimately will harm the economy as a whole. 

I'm just trying to look ahead to post-pandemic and am secretly hopeful that there will be some sort of general labor reckoning because people are going to take a holistic view on this whole economy and realize that it is asinine to still expect people to be happy with the wages that are seen as "minimum."