Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[Deadpulse]

56 minutes ago, mission27 said:

But there are legit reasons some people can't get it & probably other negative effects of letting the virus continue to circulate (mutations, etc.) so the dumb people will have to be dealt with with an iron fist 

Children are the big one. It is very likely that any approved vaccine wont be approved for children 12 and under. With studies showing that children are super spreaders, this is a real concern and yet another massive chink in the idea that a vaccine will set things back to normal. 

[VonKarman]

3 hours ago, Deadpulse said:

Children are the big one. It is very likely that any approved vaccine wont be approved for children 12 and under. With studies showing that children are super spreaders, this is a real concern and yet another massive chink in the idea that a vaccine will set things back to normal. 

There is no conclusive evidence in children under 12  are superspreaders. In fact, most of the studied show that teenagers and young adults are the main spreaders of the desease (15-35 aprox). The following image is from a study made in India, but I believe it is pretty intuitive.

[JonStark]

17 hours ago, Xenos said:

I beg to differ on the last part. People who deliberately refuse getting vaccinated are hurting others. Their decision compromises herd immunity for the people who actually legitimately cannot.

You're right, but I feel like if 90% of the population got the vaccine and 10% didn't, the virus would be stamped out fairly quickly. I'll admit I didn't realize there were a number of reasons people wouldn't be able to get the vaccine (like the kids example mentioned earlier), so that alters my feelings a bit. 

[Deadpulse]

3 hours ago, VonKarman said:

There is no conclusive evidence in children under 12  are superspreaders. In fact, most of the studied show that teenagers and young adults are the main spreaders of the desease (15-35 aprox). The following image is from a study made in India, but I believe it is pretty intuitive.

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/10/01/919237103/kids-and-superspreaders-are-driving-covid-19-cases-in-india-huge-study-finds

https://www.princeton.edu/news/2020/09/30/largest-covid-19-contact-tracing-study-date-finds-children-key-spread-evidence

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/08/looking-at-children-as-the-silent-spreaders-of-sars-cov-2/

[Tugboat]

6 minutes ago, Deadpulse said:

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/10/01/919237103/kids-and-superspreaders-are-driving-covid-19-cases-in-india-huge-study-finds

https://www.princeton.edu/news/2020/09/30/largest-covid-19-contact-tracing-study-date-finds-children-key-spread-evidence

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/08/looking-at-children-as-the-silent-spreaders-of-sars-cov-2/

Honestly, i think anyone who has ever met a child, should probably understand this.

[VonKarman]

3 minutes ago, Deadpulse said:

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/10/01/919237103/kids-and-superspreaders-are-driving-covid-19-cases-in-india-huge-study-finds

https://www.princeton.edu/news/2020/09/30/largest-covid-19-contact-tracing-study-date-finds-children-key-spread-evidence

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/08/looking-at-children-as-the-silent-spreaders-of-sars-cov-2/

Yeah, there are hundreds of papers about COVID and children. Some of them tell one story, some the opposite, that's why I said there's no conclusive evidence. See for example this thread:

Not every scientific study is as good as the others and not always they are right. I'd be careful to make such statements when the scientific community is still figuring out what is happening.

[Tugboat]

Just now, VonKarman said:

Yeah, there are hundreds of papers about COVID and children. Some of them tell one story, some the opposite, that's why I said there's no conclusive evidence. See for example this thread:

Not every scientific study is as good as the others and not always they are right. I'd be careful to make such statements when the scientific community is still figuring out what is happening.

The biggest thing about children, is that they seem to immune to the worst of the effects.  But they can still spread the virus without even knowing it.  And children are legitimately disgusting.  They have the lack of personal hygiene to make them "superspreaders".

Anywhere 'round here that outbreaks have flared up, have been directly linked to trying to re-open schools.  Kids are germ factories.  The fact they're resilient against the effects of Covid just makes it worse.  That's where they can be spreading it without even having any symptoms.

[Deadpulse]

7 minutes ago, VonKarman said:

Yeah, there are hundreds of papers about COVID and children. Some of them tell one story, some the opposite, that's why I said there's no conclusive evidence. See for example this thread:

Not every scientific study is as good as the others and not always they are right. I'd be careful to make such statements when the scientific community is still figuring out what is happening.

Im sorry but you didn't read any of the articles. Here is a quote from Harvard, which is a trusted source, from something that was published in a medical journal (which means it was peer reviewed and agreed upon as fact in the medical community):

Quote

“I was surprised by the high levels of virus we found in children of all ages, especially in the first two days of infection,” says Lael Yonker, director of the MGH Cystic Fibrosis Center and lead author of the study. “I was not expecting the viral load to be so high. You think of a hospital, and of all of the precautions taken to treat severely ill adults, but the viral loads of these hospitalized patients are significantly lower than a ‘healthy child’ who is walking around with a high SARS-CoV-2 viral load.”

Transmissibility or risk of contagion is greater with a high viral load. And even when children exhibit symptoms typical of COVID-19, like fever, runny nose and cough, they often overlap with common childhood illnesses, including influenza and the common cold. This confounds an accurate diagnosis of COVID-19, the illness derived from the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, says Yonker. Along with viral load, researchers examined expression of the viral receptor and antibody response in healthy children, children with acute SARS-CoV-2 infection and a smaller number of children with Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C).

You can die on your hill if you'd like. However, I AM being careful making such statements, because I have done the research. 

[VonKarman]

1 minute ago, Tugboat said:

The biggest thing about children, is that they seem to immune to the worst of the effects.  But they can still spread the virus without even knowing it.  And children are legitimately disgusting.  They have the lack of personal hygiene to make them "superspreaders".

Anywhere 'round here that outbreaks have flared up, have been directly linked to trying to re-open schools.  Kids are germ factories.  The fact they're resilient against the effects of Covid just makes it worse.  That's where they can be spreading it without even having any symptoms.

 

I put a tweet with links to scientific studies that support that kids are not superspreaders and you answer me with a couple generic sentences. And your second paragraph is simply false. In the country where I live (Spain) we are also having huge superspreading events and still none of them have been traced back to schools. There's still much work to do, but as I sead there is no conclusive evidence (I am not saying it is true or false though, just that we need more proof).

[Tugboat]

Just now, VonKarman said:

 

I put a tweet with links to scientific studies that support that kids are not superspreaders and you answer me with a couple generic sentences. And your second paragraph is simply false. In the country where I live (Spain) we are also having huge superspreading events and still none of them have been traced back to schools. There's still much work to do, but as I sead there is no conclusive evidence (I am not saying it is true or false though, just that we need more proof).

There are plenty of other superspreading events to be had.  Here as well.  Heck, the latest one here was the moronic police having a going away party for someone.  Good job guys, really setting an example and keeping the peace.

 

 

But pretty much everywhere schools have been opened up, numbers have shot up again.  It's not a coincidence.  It's not "an opinion" man.

[VonKarman]

1 minute ago, Deadpulse said:

Im sorry but you didn't read any of the articles. Here is a quote from Harvard, which is a trusted source, from something that was published in a medical journal (which means it was peer reviewed and agreed upon as fact in the medical community):

You can die on your hill if you'd like. However, I AM being careful making such statements, because I have done the research. 

First, I was not saying that the work made in those articles was of poor quality. Second, Harvard is a trusted source, the same way other universities are, and there are peer-reviewed articles in medical journals that say otherwise. The fact that it is published does not mean it is agreed upon as fact in the medical community. It's pretty obvious you haven't published a scientific paper in your life and that you do not work in science, otherwise you wouldn't claim that fact (I do, though not in Medicine).

Once again I'm not saying those statements are true or false, just that there is no conclusive evidence to make that claim. I understand the precaution from parents when facing this problem though.

[VonKarman]

3 minutes ago, Tugboat said:

But pretty much everywhere schools have been opened up, numbers have shot up again.  It's not a coincidence.  It's not "an opinion" man.

I don't know the specifics in the US as I don't live there, but at least in western Europe it hasn't been that way. What's more, my previous sentence is as valid as what you wrote in your message (just an opinion with no evidence to attached to it).

[Deadpulse]

18 minutes ago, VonKarman said:

First, I was not saying that the work made in those articles was of poor quality. Second, Harvard is a trusted source, the same way other universities are, and there are peer-reviewed articles in medical journals that say otherwise. The fact that it is published does not mean it is agreed upon as fact in the medical community. It's pretty obvious you haven't published a scientific paper in your life and that you do not work in science, otherwise you wouldn't claim that fact (I do, though not in Medicine).

Once again I'm not saying those statements are true or false, just that there is no conclusive evidence to make that claim. I understand the precaution from parents when facing this problem though.

poor choice of words. It IS peer reviewed and thusly can be viewed with a degree of certainty. It would not be published without significant merit and considering there are plenty of other examples I have offered to back it up, again I can be confident in these assessments.

 

20 minutes ago, VonKarman said:

and there are peer-reviewed articles in medical journals that say otherwise.

Please, provide them. I didn't see any that refuted the ones I provided. 

[WizeGuy]

On 11/10/2020 at 9:23 AM, Deadpulse said:

Short answer is both.

That 90% efficacy rate will likely go down after further trials, but for arguments sake, lets say it releases at 90%. That means there is still a 10% chance you could actually be infected. However, if you do get infected, your immune system will be crazy more prepared to fight it off, which should drastically reduce symptoms. That is a HUGE bonus because most long term effects/death are caused by complications from the symptoms. 

I was referring more to this part of the article I post:

"Most of the questions have to do with the limitations of the study. The trial was designed to see if there were fewer cases of symptomatic COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus, in people getting the vaccine rather than placebo."

"Pfizer's trial, and the ongoing studies of other leading coronavirus-vaccine developers, aren't regularly testing volunteers to gauge asymptomatic infections. That may mean vaccinated people could still become asymptomatic carriers and unknowingly spread the virus to others."

 

We're all hoping for it to prevent infection all together, but limiting the severity of symptoms would be welcomed as well. 

Edited November 11, 2020 by WizeGuy

[Deadpulse]

6 minutes ago, WizeGuy said:

I was referring more to this part of the article I post:

"Most of the questions have to do with the limitations of the study. The trial was designed to see if there were fewer cases of symptomatic COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus, in people getting the vaccine rather than placebo."

"Pfizer's trial, and the ongoing studies of other leading coronavirus-vaccine developers, aren't regularly testing volunteers to gauge asymptomatic infections. That may mean vaccinated people could still become asymptomatic carriers and unknowingly spread the virus to others."

 

We're all hoping for it to prevent infection all together, but limiting the severity of symptoms would be welcomed as well. 

While that is true, if the efficacy rate remains where it is asymptomatic people SHOULD be few and far between. We shall see though.