5 5
gowlerk

covid-19

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Good morning. I've been whacked for saying that anecdotal info has value. I don't agree with that opinion but none the less, it has been repeatedly stated. One guy, that I respect, even said he would throw it in the trash, boom, crushed...

...About the head start thing. There are other options to making oneself less prone to severe problems.

 

I didn't read it that way.

As I posted above, anecdotal doesn't trump data.

And what, exactly, are the options to 'making one's self less prone to severe problems'?

Vaccine 101 (no matter what the official definition of 'vaccine' is):
You expose your immune system to an 'invader' that is mostly harmless.
That give the immune system an opportunity to develop antibodies to that invader (takes a week or so).
When the real 'invader' (the virus) shows up, your immune system is primed and ready to respond.
Without the vax, your immune system has to develop those antibodies while the virus is already making you sick. It then becomes a race between your immune system and the virus. 
If your immune system can develop the antibodies before the virus destroys your body, then you get better.
If the virus can reproduce faster than your immune system can come to an effective defense, then you die.
Like almost 800k people in the US so far.


 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, billeisele said:

About the head start thing. There are other options to making oneself less prone to severe problems.

Vaccines have been a proven strategy for dealing with many of the pathogens that infect people and cause disease. I'm not going to list them here as I am sure you are familiar with this fact.  SARS‐CoV‐2 is just the latest in a long line of them. Just as there is essentially no easy way to treat other infections caused by viruses, like colds for instance, there is no easy and effective way to treat Covid-19 disease. Most people recover thankfully. Prevention is always far better than cure anyway. 

The only real difference in public acceptance of vaccine as the best method of dealing with it is that somehow it has managed to become a political issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

And what, exactly, are the options to 'making one's self less prone to severe problems'?

Vaccine 101 (no matter what the official definition of 'vaccine' is):
You expose your immune system to an 'invader' that is mostly harmless.
That give the immune system an opportunity to develop antibodies to that invader (takes a week or so).
When the real 'invader' (the virus) shows up, your immune system is primed and ready to respond.
Without the vax, your immune system has to develop those antibodies while the virus is already making you sick. It then becomes a race between your immune system and the virus. 
If your immune system can develop the antibodies before the virus destroys your body, then you get better.
If the virus can reproduce faster than your immune system can come to an effective defense, then you die.
Like almost 800k people in the US so far.
 

Thanks for thoughtful reply. I completely agree with your immune response statement.

The immune system remains a mystery. It's has, and continues to do a fantastic job at keeping us alive. When kids eat dirt, or when you have a cut, it jumps in and saves the day, and so on.

Most cancer researchers believe that everyone has cancer cells, and that they are below detectable levels by current technology. The immune system successfully fights them off until the day that something goes wrong that allows the cancer to grow beyond the capability of the immune system. At that point it becomes detectable. There is a long list of things that can go wrong including injury, and simply getting older.

It makes sense to have the healthiest immune system possible. There are many ways to do that and much of it goes back to the stuff we've all heard about like eating right, get enough rest, exercise, etc. There is a ton of literature on sugar and how it's bad. I guess that falls under eating right. You can decide for yourself.

The question then becomes, is it possible to boost the immune system, and the answer is yes. Some would say that just means that the immune system has a range and you're better off at the top of the range. Makes sense. 

Having a super strong immune system enables it to be - I don't know - faster, more effective, better at fighting bad stuff.

Vit D3 is a fundamental building block of the immune system. MDs used to think that 20-30 was good, now it's 50-80. For most people it's not possible to have a level that high without taking daily supplements. D3 is the sunshine vitamin. We're told to wear long sleeves, hats and sunscreen. A good idea but it inhibits the uptake of D3. Yes, it's in food but for most it's impossible to get enough. So, get your level tested to see where you are and take supplements. The stuff is super cheap and almost impossible to misuse. Then there is a multi-vitamin and plenty of Vit C. One can continue down this path with all kinds of stuff. Folks can decide for themselves what they want to do. 

Couple cases that are both anecdotal. I know a 91-year old that has the body and cognitive ability of a ~75 year old. She takes all kinds of supplements, and eats right and presumably has a strong immune system. She swims 2,000 yards 3x a week, and walks or rides an exercise bike daily. So is it the dietary intake, the exercise, the rest, good genes or the combination that makes her so young? Probably/maybe all of it. She's not willing to stop one and see what happens. She started swimming at 65 and holds numerous state records and a few top 10 national records. Anyone want to race her in the 400 IM? She's slow as Christmas but finishes, some of us would drown first. She got COVID and on day 9 had monoclonal antibody treatment. That is against protocol but they did it anyway. If she had not had viral pneumonia she would have been fine. Took a few days to deal with the pneumonia, now she is fine. 

Next is me. Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma diagnosis. My D3 was 17 and regularly had typical colds, etc. Fifteen cancer treatments later and I've been cancer free and clear for 4.5 years. Been taking daily D3 supplements ever since, my level is in the 60 - 70's range. How much, typically 10,000 IU a day, sometimes add in some more. My lifestyle hasn't changed and I rarely if ever have a cold or other typical things. 

I can't prove anything but.....it seems to work. One should wonder why during this mess, the talking heads haven't mentioned the immune system. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, billeisele said:

The question then becomes, is it possible to boost the immune system, and the answer is yes. Some would say that just means that the immune system has a range and you're better off at the top of the range. Makes sense. 

Having a super strong immune system enables it to be - I don't know - faster, more effective, better at fighting bad stuff.

There are many diseases caused by the immune system getting out of hand and attacking otherwise healthy tissue. This is a very complex subject and not something most of us can really even begin to understand. People who take drugs and supplements to "strengthen the immune system" are completely clueless. The only reasonable phrase in the quote from you above is when you type the words "I don't know". 

Edited by gowlerk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, billeisele said:

The point being that since the data is not normalized for population it's not apples to apples. But one could still state - Hey look, FL is great and CA sux, and not be incorrect, based on the limitations of the data.

No, that would be completely incorrect, and would demonstrate that one has a complete and possibly willful inability to appropriately analyze data.
 

For third time, any random attempt at analyzing data is not inherently correct. What a bizarre thing to suggest. Saying it over and over again isn’t going to make it any more true. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, billeisele said:

If there was one of those gosh darn gold standard RCT's done and it showed that result then one could make that claim. Otherwise all we have is anecdotal info that, according to some, is worthless

Strawman. There are other types of evidence that are weaker than RCT but stronger than anecdote. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, billeisele said:

Interesting statement. What is the cite to show that?

You cannot pass on the infection if you do not get the infection.  As of September, with the mix of strains at that time, you are 5x less likely to become infected to begin with if you are vaccinated.  (See below.)

You CAN pass on the infection if you are infected but show no symptoms, and most people think of the vaccine as "keeping me from getting sick."  That's why it is true that vaccinated people can still pass on infection.  But since they are less likely to get any infection to begin with, they are less likely to pass it on.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7037e1.htm?s_cid=mm7037e1_w

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wmw999 said:

One of the issues with population increase (which our economic systems). A 1% instance of really awful gun owners in a population of 100 means it's probably one or two people -- they can be damaging, but there just aren't that many.

In a population of 10,000, that's closer to 100 people. All of a sudden, it's a lot easier to meet one, unless everyone has their own assigned territory. And if they're not bad gun owners, but bad something else, well, now they have FB, What'sApp, and lots of other ways to communicate, too.

Taking that logic and move it to our inceasingly populated country, and especially cities, and you can begin to see why low-probability problems can become worrisome, even if they're still low-probability. Because you're closer together, and a single instance can have a huge impact.

Wendy P.

Well carried. Now where is the data showing you didn't need a seatbelt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Well carried. Now where is the data showing you didn't need a seatbelt?

Oh come on -- you remember all the stories of people who were saved because they were ejected from their cars, or were able to escape from a burning vehicle because they weren't belted in, etc. You're old enough to remember the "they can't make me" wars...

At least as valid as many of the anti-vax arguments.

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Thanks for thoughtful reply. I completely agree with your immune response statement.

The immune system remains a mystery. It's has, and continues to do a fantastic job at keeping us alive. When kids eat dirt, or when you have a cut, it jumps in and saves the day, and so on.

Well, we do know a lot about how it works.  We can create immunities with vaccines.  We can shut it down partially to achieve medical goals (like not rejecting a transplanted organ.)  We can even take immune-system cells out of your body, re-engineer them a bit, then reinject them so they will fight off your cancer (google CAR T-cell therapy.)

Quote

\Most cancer researchers believe that everyone has cancer cells, and that they are below detectable levels by current technology. The immune system successfully fights them off until the day that something goes wrong that allows the cancer to grow beyond the capability of the immune system. At that point it becomes detectable.

Cancer is caused by proto-oncogenes that mutate into oncogenes.  A proto-oncogene is one of the thousands of genes that you have that enables cell growth.  That's critical because you have to keep replacing old cells as they die; your average cell only lasts about 10 years, so without proto-oncogenes you wouldn't make it to your teens (and you'd never get any taller.)

As cells divide, genetic errors creep in.  Most of them are in the junk DNA and mean nothing.  Most of the rest just destroy the cell; it dies and shuts down.  But very rarely a proto-oncogene mutates into an oncogene and starts the cell dividing more than it should.

At that point you still have a lot of defenses.  Your cells have several genes that code for apoptosis - programmed cell death - that occurs when those oncogenes start causing rapid division and spreading of cancer.  And even if those fail, something called the Hayflick Limit will stop the cell after it divides (say) a thousand times.

All that happens without your immune system getting involved.  That's actually a good thing, because even those dividing cells are still your own cells with your own genome, and you wouldn't want your immune system to attack your own cells without a really good reason.  

If things go beyond that point, then your immune system may get involved.  Very specialized white blood cells can recognize some markers present on an out-of-control cancer cell and infiltrate it and slow it down or eliminate it, which is likely what those cancer researchers were talking about.  But now you are getting into a dangerous area, because the difference between your own cells and cancer cells is a very, very small one.

The above is to illustrate just how hard the problem is.  Because in a very real way, every single living cell in your body is a potential cancer cell, full of proto-oncogenes, ready to divide, and also invisible to your immune system.

Quote

The question then becomes, is it possible to boost the immune system, and the answer is yes. Some would say that just means that the immune system has a range and you're better off at the top of the range. Makes sense. 

Yes!  Vaccines are the primary way we do this.  By giving the adaptive immune system an "example" of the pathogen, we train it to produce antibodies (which attack it directly) and we train memory B cells to remember the pathogen in the future (so that if you are infected, you can produce antibodies rapidly.)  This is why the COVID vaccine is better at preventing severe disease than preventing infection.  Those antibodies only last about six month, but the immunologic memory lasts years.

Quote

One should wonder why during this mess, the talking heads haven't mentioned the immune system.

???

An interview with Fauci Sep 2020:

Reporter: Is there anything you'd like to clear up about the role that diet and lifestyle can play in immunity and severity of disease?

Fauci: If you really want to keep your immune system working optimally, there are things that you do that are normal things: Get a reasonable amount of sleep, get a good diet, try to avoid or alleviate severe stress, which we know can sometimes impact the immune system. That is much more healthy living than giving yourself supplements of anything.

He's said this about a dozen times.  The reason you don't hear about this more often is the same reason that you get ads promoting miracle weight loss pills and diets, rather than ads saying "eat less meat and get more exercise."  No one wants to hear that.  They want a pill that solves the problem for them without a lot of annoying exercise, and without having to eat things they don't like.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Oh come on -- you remember all the stories of people who were saved because they were ejected from their cars, or were able to escape from a burning vehicle because they weren't belted in, etc. You're old enough to remember the "they can't make me" wars...

At least as valid as many of the anti-vax arguments.

Wendy P.

An anecdotal anti-belter. I'll wager you still have a school desk to hunker under.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Oh come on -- you remember all the stories of people who were saved because they were ejected from their cars, or were able to escape from a burning vehicle because they weren't belted in, etc. You're old enough to remember the "they can't make me" wars...

At least as valid as many of the anti-vax arguments.

Wendy P.

Or had the roof come down where they were sitting, and they would have been crushed. I know someone who claims that (old-school Bronco with the 'tin roof' - the fact that he could have just laid to the side with the belt on has yet to occur to him).

Of course, the number of people killed because they were ejected from the car is staggering. I personally know two. One was ejected straight up. About 20 feet was the estimate, based on the impact injuries (fatal). Another was partially ejected, out the passenger door window, and died when the car rolled on top of her.

And the fact that the impact is usually hard enough to render a person unconscious, so escaping from a burning (or sinking) car is far more doable if you had your seatbelt on.

But, you know, reality and facts don't stand up against "Aunt Mabel's Anecdotes".

My personal favorite reason to not wear a seat belt was because 'It wrinkles my dress'. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, billeisele said:

Good morning. I've been whacked for saying that anecdotal info has value.

Anecdotal info definitely has value.  If a guy you know buys a Sabre 3 and he likes it, that's useful info.

But it can be a mistake to rely on that for medical information, especially with a disease with a low fatality rate.  Let's take an example:

A doctor decides to try ivermectin in his patients.  He gives it to 1000 people who come to his office with COVID cases.  They all survive.  "It is a miracle drug!" he proclaims, since average mortality is about 1%, and that would mean that 10 people would normally die.  He saved 10 people!

But there are some problems with this.  First we find out that his practice is in Palo Alto and his patients are typically younger tech types.  The death rate for their age group is .2% - which means that ordinarily 2 people would die.  Still, seems like ivermectin works.

Next we find out that that average .2% mortality rate (for that age group) is for people who either have COVID symptoms or who test positive.  Most people in the country don't regularly get tested, and so that pool of people is 90% people with symptoms and 10% people without.  But this population, the population that he sees, mostly works in tech companies with mandatory testing, and so most of the people he gets in his practice came in without symptoms - they came in because they tested positive.  Say 80% are symptom-free, and 20% have symptoms.  For THAT group of people, in that age range, death rates are much lower - .04% (since symptom severity is a good predictor of outcome.)

Which means that even if he hadn't given them ivermectin, they all would have likely survived.

This isn't some theory.  This effect has been seen time and time again in medical testing even when the researchers were making their best efforts to not introduce bias or wishful thinking.

How do you weed out such factors?  By better design of experiment.  By having his practice included in the trial, but also practices in rural areas where there isn't much testing, the testing-rate factor can be mitigated as a confounder.  By having nursing home data included, the age spread can be mitigated as a cofounder.  And by having another similar practice in Palo Alto do exactly the same thing, with the same population base, but without the ivermectin, both can be mitigated.

Better yet, in his one practice, give ivermectin to half the patients and a placebo to the other half.  Choose patients randomly.  Don't tell the patients OR the doctor who is getting what.  Now you have a double blind test.  And if, at the end, everyone who took ivermectin survived, and 5 people who didn't get it survived, then you have far more compelling data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Or had the roof come down where they were sitting, and they would have been crushed. I know someone who claims that (old-school Bronco with the 'tin roof' - the fact that he could have just laid to the side with the belt on has yet to occur to him).

Of course, the number of people killed because they were ejected from the car is staggering. I personally know two. One was ejected straight up. About 20 feet was the estimate, based on the impact injuries (fatal). Another was partially ejected, out the passenger door window, and died when the car rolled on top of her.

And the fact that the impact is usually hard enough to render a person unconscious, so escaping from a burning (or sinking) car is far more doable if you had your seatbelt on.

But, you know, reality and facts don't stand up against "Aunt Mabel's Anecdotes".

My personal favorite reason to not wear a seat belt was because 'It wrinkles my dress'. 

I flipped and rolled a '53 Chevy coming down a mountain, no seat belt of course. Talk about getting your cage rattled. Even though I have valuable personal experience, and a swell anecdote I trust the science and wear one now. Of course, if I read any studies out of Delhi showing that ejection is the way to go for 97% of all participants, I'll surely reconsider.

Edited by JoeWeber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've mentioned the Herman Cain Award sub on Reddit several times.

Lots of snark, more than a smidgeon of schadenfreude, but a lot of interesting and insightful stuff. 
The comments for each post are often more interesting than the posts themselves (which are very repetitive).

I saw this a bit earlier. Kinda sums up my feelings on the matter:
 

Quote

There's some validity in traditional medicines. For example, honey can soothe a sore throat, ginger can settle the stomach, witch hazel can fix a headache, and a vaccine will save you from Covid because traditional medicine has its limits and I'm not dumb enough to die like a medieval peasant.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, wmw999 said:

 

When you consider the potential of unknowingly spreading the disease to someone who is not as robustly healthy, and is impacted by the disease they caught from you (the rhetorical you -- I don't know your current condition), then the desirability of vaccination increases hugely.

You incorrectly assume antivaxxers care about any of that. Most probably havent even considered it because they are too busy arguing points about how natural immunity is the best immunity, the vaccine hasent been tested well enough, and Covid isint that big of a deal anyway.

I think it's safe to say if someone isint concerned about covid enough to get vaccinated to protect themselves, they sure as hell arnt going to do it for someone else.

Edited by Westerly
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wmw999 said:

Oh come on -- you remember all the stories of people who were saved because they were ejected from their cars, or were able to escape from a burning vehicle because they weren't belted in, etc. You're old enough to remember the "they can't make me" wars...

At least as valid as many of the anti-vax arguments.

Wendy P.

I have two family members who are alive because they did not wear a seat belt. I still wear a seat belt...every time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

I have two family members who are alive because they did not wear a seat belt. I still wear a seat belt...every time.

lol what does that even mean. How do you know they would have died if they would have worn a seatbelt? i have been in a vehicle that was completely underwater and fully flooded. I was still able to get out of the seatbelt and swim to the surface. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

I have two family members who are alive because they did not wear a seat belt. I still wear a seat belt...every time.

I was in a '68 Mustang where the point of impact was the door against which I was leaning, and my pelvis would have been crushed if there had been a seatbelt (I would have worn it if available).

I'm with you, I wear a seatbelt if the car is moving and a really good helmet when on motorcycles.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

5 5