Gyroscopic Investing

AND the WHO was real quick to walk back that statement that asymptomatic spreading was rare... https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/09/worl ... dates.html

My friend's son, who is an FDNY paramedic, tested positive for COVID antibodies. He was never sick. My friend tested negative for antibodies. She would be considered in a high risk group because of her age, though she has no other risk factors.

They had a lot of contact with each other the last couple of months. He brought over his sick cat because he was working crazy hours and couldn't take care of her. This happened right around the beginning of the lockdown, and he visited frequently throughout to check on his cat (and his mom).

A piece of data about asymptomatic transmission for whatever it's worth.

WiseOne wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 11:44 am My friend's son, who is an FDNY paramedic, tested positive for COVID antibodies. He was never sick. My friend tested negative for antibodies. She would be considered in a high risk group because of her age, though she has no other risk factors.

They had a lot of contact with each other the last couple of months. He brought over his sick cat because he was working crazy hours and couldn't take care of her. This happened right around the beginning of the lockdown, and he visited frequently throughout to check on his cat (and his mom).

A piece of data about asymptomatic transmission for whatever it's worth.

Serious question: Was the cat sick with COVID-19?

Interesting question!

The cat had renal failure and loss of appetite. She got better with a shot of antibiotics and an appetite stimulant that I brought over - happened to have it left over from a sick cat episode of my own. No way to know if that was it, but the cat was a rescue who was thin/scrawny/sick when found.

This hour-long video, which just hit the internet, blew me away. A nurse from New York's Elmhurst Hospital, the "epicenter of the epicenter," describes in detail what's really going on--which in a nutshell boils down to nothing short of murder. I guarantee this video will be well worth your time, but it's likely to be taken down soon, so I'd recommend viewing it now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIDsKdeFOmQ

The (scientifically) correct one.

And a wise one at that, in my opinion.
Essentials.

re dualstow's signature

For more NYC misery, google “Rashid Brimmage”

Ah that wonderful bail reform law....this is just one of the many consequences. Too bad the mainstream papers ignored it. Can't have people drawing a line between Cuomo/deBlasio's actions and stories like this.

Kriegsspiel wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2020 6:43 am

The (scientifically) correct one.

That looks like one ply stuff we now have a bunch of. Not sure whether to throw it away or save it for the second or third wave.

pp4me wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2020 5:21 am

Kriegsspiel wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2020 6:43 am

The (scientifically) correct one.

That looks like one ply stuff we now have a bunch of. Not sure whether to throw it away or save it for the second or third wave.

I'd hang onto it unless you are very tight for space. Better to have 1-ply than no plies!

It looks like he went for the Bud heavies, but maybe the Coors? Probably not relevant, but... you never know. The Wuhan works in mysterious ways.

Kriegsspiel wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2020 2:48 pm It looks like he went for the Bud heavies, but maybe the Coors? Probably not relevant, but... you never know. The Wuhan works in mysterious ways.

Whenever you write “the Wuhan” my brain hears “You don’t mess with the...”

YOU GET ME

This study (pre-print abstract only, not yet peer reviewed or published) found something quite interesting and unexpected: Some people infected with SARS-CoV-2 apparently develop T-cell responses to it without the corresponding B-cell antibody production, meaning even though they test negative for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies they have still in fact developed immunity to it.

If this finding is true, one implication is that testing negative for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies doesn't necessarily mean you haven't developed immunity. Another implication is that antibody prevalence in serology surveys may underestimate the number of people who have developed immunity.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 20132449v1

Tortoise wrote: ↑Tue Jun 23, 2020 1:19 pm This study (pre-print abstract only, not yet peer reviewed or published) found something quite interesting and unexpected: Some people infected with SARS-CoV-2 apparently develop T-cell responses to it without the corresponding B-cell antibody production, meaning even though they test negative for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies they have still in fact developed immunity to it.

If this finding is true, one implication is that testing negative for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies doesn't necessarily mean you haven't developed immunity. Another implication is that antibody prevalence in serology surveys may underestimate the number of people who have developed immunity.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 20132449v1

Very interesting!

Tortoise wrote: ↑Tue Jun 23, 2020 1:19 pm This study (pre-print abstract only, not yet peer reviewed or published) found something quite interesting and unexpected: Some people infected with SARS-CoV-2 apparently develop T-cell responses to it without the corresponding B-cell antibody production, meaning even though they test negative for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies they have still in fact developed immunity to it.

If this finding is true, one implication is that testing negative for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies doesn't necessarily mean you haven't developed immunity. Another implication is that antibody prevalence in serology surveys may underestimate the number of people who have developed immunity.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 20132449v1

Thanks! And, well, shoot.
I had negative results from an antibody test last week.
Now, I know even less than I did before.

Mark Leavy wrote: ↑Tue Jun 23, 2020 9:58 pm

Tortoise wrote: ↑Tue Jun 23, 2020 1:19 pm This study (pre-print abstract only, not yet peer reviewed or published) found something quite interesting and unexpected: Some people infected with SARS-CoV-2 apparently develop T-cell responses to it without the corresponding B-cell antibody production, meaning even though they test negative for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies they have still in fact developed immunity to it.

If this finding is true, one implication is that testing negative for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies doesn't necessarily mean you haven't developed immunity. Another implication is that antibody prevalence in serology surveys may underestimate the number of people who have developed immunity.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 20132449v1

Thanks! And, well, shoot.
I had negative results from an antibody test last week.
Now, I know even less than I did before.

Same here, although it was a couple of weeks ago.
Maybe they'll be able to figure out a way to use T-cells in mass testing to get a better handle on this issue.

Some interesting data from Florida taken from this Twitter thread.

And this from Texas:

Health officials in Texas are logging every single COVID-19-positive hospital patient in the state as a COVID-19 hospitalization, even if the patients themselves are admitted seeking treatment for something other than the coronavirus.

Texas Health Resources, one of the state's largest hospital systems, says on its website that its "patients [are] tested before most procedures." Elective surgeries and other medical procedures in Texas have gone up in recent weeks as the state has gradually re-opened following its lockdown.

The number of hospitalizations are "being misinterpreted," said Houston Methodist CEO Marc Boom, "and, quite frankly, we’re concerned that there is a level of alarm in the community that is unwarranted right now."

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy ... pital-case

Coincidentally, our friend Karl has published strong opinion about mask use today:

https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=3552549

Yes, the same thing is happening in NY. It makes sense to do COVID testing in any patient coming into the hospital, since obviously you need to implement precautions if they're positive. Counting them as a COVID case also makes sense. But listing them as "COVID hospitalizations" is incredibly misleading, unless they were admitted specifically with COVID symptoms.

Maybe there really is an increase in true serious COVID illnesses, because of the stories about ICUs filling up. On the other hand...my hospital likes to stay as close to full as possible because that's how they make money. 88% full would normally trigger emails asking us to find reasons to admit people. We get yelled at if the specialty unit that my division runs has empty beds more than occasionally. The hospitals that were 70% full because of cancelling elective procedures were probably really upset about it. Going up to 88% full may simply be because they're now admitting patients for elective procedures.

With all these issues...it's kind of hard to know what's really happening. Having a lot of people testing positive for COVID is not by itself a problem. If the numbers from New York and Santa Clara county are to be believed, around 10-20% of the entire US population had already been exposed to the virus over a month ago - likely it's more than that now. I'm perfectly prepared to believe that there really is a surge in serious cases in many states, but so far I haven't seen any reliable supporting information.

flyingpylon wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 8:25 am And this from Texas:
[...]
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy ... pital-case

Financial incentive from the CARES Act. See my recent comment in this other thread: viewtopic.php?p=199605#p199605

Here in Pinellas County, Florida we now have a mandatory mask ordinance in public places after the so-called "surge" in new cases once the lock-downs were lifted.

Looking at the charts there truly has been a significant increase in new cases but it coincides not only with the end of the lock-downs but the implementation of free testing with or without symptoms.

Running the numbers myself the total number of cases in the county since the very beginning has amounted to about one half of one percent (.5%) of the total population of one million people. If that's a "surge" then I think we will be able to handle it okay. Deaths and hospitalizations do NOT show any significant increase but they don't show that in the CDC charts - just the number of new cases.

Having said that I do think young people might be too quick to abandon all caution but can you really blame them for thinking the whole thing was bullshit when the dire predictions didn't pan out?

One thing that hasn't happened here in Florida that went against my expectations and those of others is that the hot weather isn't killing it (100 degrees is predicted here today which is actually a rarity). The same seems to be true in other warm weather states. The best theory I've heard about why this has been the case is because in the hot weather states we stay inside with the circulating A/C on.

Here in the AZ desert we have been 100 degrees plus for two months now, with most weeks recently closer to 110. And we have the worst cases per million pop in the country right now. Corona likes the hot temps it seems. Also, our data has surprisingly shown a DECREASE in tests done, but a major increase in percentage of tests positive. Things are bad here. Most cities last week voted to make masks mandatory in public. We will find out in a week or so just how much masks effect the transmission. If our numbers improve substantially, then it's a good sign that masks are effective. If they don't, then it would really put a damper on the pro-mask argument. Honestly, I really hope the masks do work. It would be so much better to have to wear masks than to have to lock down again. We have less than 200 beds available right now, and many hospitals in the less populated areas are full and having to ship people to Phoenix for treatment. Part of the children's hospital was converted to coronavirus ICU space. Seems like every day is record breaking numbers across the board. The AZ corona charts are all just straight up and to the right with no sign of tapering. A major chunk of the new cases have surprisingly been younger people too.

Obviously, in a very right wing state the mandatory mask ruling has not went over well (Scottsdale especially, they had a big no-mask protest that looked like a Darwinian paradise with droves of older people crowded on each other protesting masks). But these would be crying even more if we had to lock down again. The places I've been this week everyone has had masks on, which is a far cry from a week ago where I felt like a big time minority by wearing a mask. I really, really hope the masks prove to work, because it is a much less evil than having to lock down again.

pp4me wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 2:14 pm The best theory I've heard about why this has been the case is because in the hot weather states we stay inside with the circulating A/C on.

I have heard the theory that northern locations had the biggest problems earlier because everyone stays inside with the heat on, but southern locations are having problems now because everyone stays inside with the A/C on. Seems logical, but who knows.

My question is why is there a spike in testing (which in turn identifies more cases)? Is it just because testing is freely available now, or is it because people actually have symptoms?