Coronovirus III

[HoughMade]

This could be good news (very, very good news) from South Korea:

Recovered virus patients retest positive due to 'dead' virus fragments: experts

https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20200429007051320

As of Tuesday, a total of 277 people who recovered from COVID-19 have retested positive here, according to the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (KCDC).

The country's central clinical committee for emerging disease control said there was no live virus present in such cases, positively refuting theories like the virus being reactivated or reinfection.

They said that apparent reinfection cases came because fragments of the virus remained in their bodies and showed up in test kits.

 

[Ingomike]

This could be good news (very, very good news) from South Korea:

Recovered virus patients retest positive due to 'dead' virus fragments: experts

https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20200429007051320

Interesting find...

 

[foszoe]

Could you tell that to the DJIA, S&P, and NASDAQ please?

This could be good news (very, very good news) from South Korea:

Recovered virus patients retest positive due to 'dead' virus fragments: experts

https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20200429007051320

 

[nonobaddog]

This could be good news (very, very good news) from South Korea:

Recovered virus patients retest positive due to 'dead' virus fragments: experts

https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20200429007051320

Yes, that is good. That is much like finding traces of the chinese virus in rooms on that cruise ship 17 days after the rooms had been vacant. This all because the test for the virus does not assay viability at all, it is simply testing for the presence of RNA strands with the virus' signature sequence.

 

[Route 45]

They want that free money so much, some are even willing to murder the mail lady for not bringing the stimulus check. Allegedly.

https://fox59.com/news/crimetracker...arrier-shot-while-on-the-job-and-the-accused/

If the motive is proven true, I wonder if they will classify this poor woman's death as a COVID related death.

The big picture. From her Facebook:

 

[smokingman]

[h=1]New Wyoming Law Bypasses USDA Regulations To Let Ranchers Sell Meat Directly To Consumers[/h]

The amendment states an “animal share” is “an ownership interest in an animal or herd of animals created by a written contract between an informed end consumer and a farmer or rancher that includes a bill of sale to the consumer for an ownership interest in the animal or herd and a boarding provision under which the consumer boards the animal or herd with the farmer or rancher for care and processing and the consumer is entitled to receive a share of meat from the animal or herd.”
​

[FONT=&quot]

“The idea for the bill is simple,” said Rep. Tyler Lindholm (WY-R-1), who also serves on the board of the nonprofit Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund. “Let ranchers and farmers sell herd shares for their animals. That way, the entire herd is ‘owned’ by all of the customers before slaughter, thereby meeting the exemption standards of the federal law. Now the rancher does not have to jump through the hoops of FMIA and can utilize the smaller mom and pop butchers that still [exist] in most of our small towns.”

Well done Tyler Lindholm and Wyoming.
https://www.naturalblaze.com/2020/0...ranchers-sell-meat-directly-to-consumers.html
​

[/FONT]

 

[drillsgt]

This could be good news (very, very good news) from South Korea:

Recovered virus patients retest positive due to 'dead' virus fragments: experts

https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20200429007051320

Smokingman's not gonna like that...

 

[Ingomike]

New Wyoming Law Bypasses USDA Regulations To Let Ranchers Sell Meat Directly To Consumers

The amendment states an “animal share” is “an ownership interest in an animal or herd of animals created by a written contract between an informed end consumer and a farmer or rancher that includes a bill of sale to the consumer for an ownership interest in the animal or herd and a boarding provision under which the consumer boards the animal or herd with the farmer or rancher for care and processing and the consumer is entitled to receive a share of meat from the animal or herd.”
​

[FONT=&amp]

“The idea for the bill is simple,” said Rep. Tyler Lindholm (WY-R-1), who also serves on the board of the nonprofit Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund. “Let ranchers and farmers sell herd shares for their animals. That way, the entire herd is ‘owned’ by all of the customers before slaughter, thereby meeting the exemption standards of the federal law. Now the rancher does not have to jump through the hoops of FMIA and can utilize the smaller mom and pop butchers that still [exist] in most of our small towns.”

Well done Tyler Lindholm and Wyoming.
https://www.naturalblaze.com/2020/0...ranchers-sell-meat-directly-to-consumers.html
​

[/FONT]

We should pass that here...

 

[Route 45]

How's a fella supposed to doomgasm with all of these covid blockers around here?

 

[Alpo]

How's a fella supposed to doomgasm with all of these covid blockers around here?

 

[HoughMade]

There are people I know who are prepared to declare Bill the Antichrist. But I say, enough people remember Vista that he could never get that popular.

 

[chipbennett]

Odd.

The whole point is that 6 weeks ago they predicted that we needed to take drastic action to reduce physical interactions in order to prevent an epidemiological disaster. We've averted that disaster (so far).

That seems like a pretty big one to get right.

Correlation does not prove causation. There was no epidemiological disaster (as defined by pre-social-distancing modeling). There remains (as yet, anyway) no evidence that the social distancing is the reason that the model-predicted epidemiological disaster didn't happen.

And I think you will find that there were some of us who, six weeks ago, said that the models were not correct, and that the allegedly flattened curve through social distancing would be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

[T.Lex]

Correlation does not prove causation. There was no epidemiological disaster (as defined by pre-social-distancing modeling). There remains (as yet, anyway) no evidence that the social distancing is the reason that the model-predicted epidemiological disaster didn't happen.

And I think you will find that there were some of us who, six weeks ago, said that the models were not correct, and that the allegedly flattened curve through social distancing would be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

You are artificially limiting my statement. I did not specify social distancing (although I do think that helps).

The aggregate of all the measures, including canceling sporting events (including low density youth sports), has averted an epidemiological disaster. (So far.)

You like math. Compare - from whatever source you want - the pre-3/31 spread (and/or deaths) and post-4/1 spread (and/or deaths). There is a difference.

Heck use whatever metric you choose to be comfortable with.

The issue wasn't the models, which, like analogies, are imperfect representations of reality. The issue appears to be that people are actually adopting the "correlation/causation" mode to deduce that because no catastrophe happened that no catastrophe was going to happen.

That ignores math.

 

[smokingman]

This could be good news (very, very good news) from South Korea:

Recovered virus patients retest positive due to 'dead' virus fragments: experts

https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20200429007051320

You posted it faster than I did. It is good news.

https://www.businessinsider.com/cor...activated-cases-not-reinfected-experts-2020-4

It is not a total end to the question about reinfection or resurgence in cases though. We still have some cases where people recovered after being hospitalized only to end up in the hospital again. In most of those cases I am wondering if it was damage done while infected that later lead to complications and re admittance rather than a new flare up or new infection. Time will tell.

Testing positive again from fragmented virus left behind makes scientific sense. Lets hope it gets a follow up study in the USA.

 

[nonobaddog]

You are artificially limiting my statement. I did not specify social distancing (although I do think that helps).

The aggregate of all the measures, including canceling sporting events (including low density youth sports), has averted an epidemiological disaster. (So far.)

You like math. Compare - from whatever source you want - the pre-3/31 spread (and/or deaths) and post-4/1 spread (and/or deaths). There is a difference.

Heck use whatever metric you choose to be comfortable with.

The issue wasn't the models, which, like analogies, are imperfect representations of reality. The issue appears to be that people are actually adopting the "correlation/causation" mode to deduce that because no catastrophe happened that no catastrophe was going to happen.

That ignores math.

Personally I think there is very little doubt that the measures taken to limit the chinese virus spread were effective in avoiding a crisis. There will always be those that say otherwise. When you look at the differences in initial response and measures taken between Italy and Hong Kong and then look at the differences in positive cases and deaths between Italy and Hong Kong it is obvious to any reasonable person that the measures taken to limit the spread are extremely important and effective.

 

[T.Lex]

I recently learned that with other coronaviruses, the antibody-immunity has varying durations.

That is, the immunity can last months or years, but it is not a "forever" thing by any means. That brings up the possibility that this particular coronavirus might have that antibody-immunity measured on the short side of that range.

A linkable example:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2851497/

Thus, SARS patients might be susceptible to reinfection >3 years after initial exposure.

 

[nonobaddog]

The immunity response has always been an unknown for this chinese virus since it is a new virus. This is true for any new virus. It will take time to evaluate this.

 

[Ingomike]

You are artificially limiting my statement. I did not specify social distancing (although I do think that helps).

The aggregate of all the measures, including canceling sporting events (including low density youth sports), has averted an epidemiological disaster. (So far.)

You like math. Compare - from whatever source you want - the pre-3/31 spread (and/or deaths) and post-4/1 spread (and/or deaths). There is a difference.

Heck use whatever metric you choose to be comfortable with.

The issue wasn't the models, which, like analogies, are imperfect representations of reality. The issue appears to be that people are actually adopting the "correlation/causation" mode to deduce that because no catastrophe happened that no catastrophe was going to happen.

That ignores math.

Social distancing by my understanding is all the things you describe, and many you didn't, like not going to grandmas nursing home,

Models should have some semblance of the reality...

 

[JCSR]

[FONT=&quot]I ran across this today. These are not my words although I'm have been thinking along these lines. BTW I'm over 60 years old.


" So let me get this straight: Indiana has close to 7 million population. According to the IBJ report, 964 people have died from Covid in Indiana. Of those that have died, 91% was over the age of 60 years old. 72% was over the age of 70! So, we have closed the entire state down for months because 96 people have died out of 7 million below the age of 60! Think about that for a minute. Let that sink in. More people have died from many, many other issues then that from it being shut down. I am certain more suicide, even car accidents. Why are we not telling people age 60 and over to stay low, many at that age or 70 are retired and not even working! We are destroying the economy."[/FONT]

 

[T.Lex]

Social distancing by my understanding is all the things you describe, and many you didn't, like not going to grandmas nursing home,

Models should have some semblance of the reality...

I see lots of stuff that should have some semblance of reality, including posts here on INGO.

The "mainstream" models even 6 weeks ago were based on the known reality at that time. (Obviously, neither of us can speak to "every" model. I'm confident there were extremes.)