Coronovirus IV

[Phase2]

And if you can't see it's polarizing, then perhaps you're in too deep.

It is more appropriate to say "they've". Their blinding hatred of anything merely associated with Trump makes them stupid.

OK. I'll guess it is now appropriate now to add "you've".

 

[chipbennett]

We are talking about a "novel" virus though - one which we have no immunity to. What will attack the replicates? I thought the virus needed to "trigger" the immune system to make antibodies before it could attack this virus. So that would lead to the same type of assumption that it takes a certain viral load of replicates before the immune system gets into gear to produce antibodies and even begin the fight.

If we have something that will kill the single virion then that implies that we already have some immunity.

I am not a doctor, so my understanding here is as a layperson. As I understand it, our immune system is very complex, and includes both innate and acquired immunity. Innate immune response includes neutrophils (a type of innate-response white blood cell) in the bloodstream and macrophages in tissue. The body's histamine response is also part of the innate immune system, and is a general (i.e. not specific) response to antigens.

Here's a pretty good breakdown of innate vs acquired immune response:

https://www.healio.com/hematology-o...system/the-innate-vs-adaptive-immune-response

 

[nonobaddog]

Decent overview:
https://elemental.medium.com/this-is-how-your-immune-system-reacts-to-coronavirus-cbf5271e530e



Basically, the immune system isn't totally powerless against novel viruses, but that lack of antibodies means that if the "generic" response doesn't work, then bad stuff happens.

OK, thanks.
So the interferons are released by the cell that was infected. The interferons affect nearby cells making them less susceptible to attack by the replicates. The original cell is still pumping out replicates so then there is a competition situation with the replicates trying to attack lung cells while some of the lung cells have increased their resistance to the attack and reduced their ability to make replicates when they are attacked. So if there is enough resistance, the infection does not bloom and you don't get sick.

So simplistically if your generic immune system is in great shape you will probably be one of the people that have minimal symptoms. But hopefully this competition situation might result in enough viral replicates put into play that it triggers the production of specific antibodies and you benefit from any potential future immunity they can provide for some as yet unknown duration.

 

[chipbennett]

And if you can't see it's polarizing, then perhaps you're in too deep.

And the left-leaning people, both strangers and personally known, who have wished COVID infection on people generally, and Trump specifically? What of them?

(The posted tweet is an appropriate response to such sentiment.)

 

[Ingomike]

The problem here is Trump even discussing medications in any specific way. He doesn't know what he's talking about and as a president he has an influence on people. The bully pulpit should be used wisely, not flippantly

At the very least it caused a drug shortage that was dangerous to people that actually need it.

He can certainly mention that drug trials are ongoing and that he's very hopeful that our doctors and scientists will find better treatments. Hanging his hat on one specific treatment has put him in a position where he has to claim that it has benefit, even though no scientific benefit has been found yet

The President, as a leader, has many responsibilities, one of them is to keep moral up in the people. That may be to buoy American manufacturing, markets, or our military. On this topic he was offering encouragement to the people. Nothing wrong with that and I certainly do not want you or anyone else putting limits on what the President can talk about...

 

[Ingomike]

Yes. I agree with the TDS-based opposition to hydroxychloroquine. But at the same time, Gilead is not making money on Remdesivir.

It would be naive to think that will be a long term action. Remdesivir is getting the biggest pharmaceutical marketing launch in history free. Most drugs must spend millions to get this kind of name recognition and implementation.

 

[chipbennett]

OK, thanks.
So the interferons are released by the cell that was infected. The interferons affect nearby cells making them less susceptible to attack by the replicates. The original cell is still pumping out replicates so then there is a competition situation with the replicates trying to attack lung cells while some of the lung cells have increased their resistance to the attack and reduced their ability to make replicates when they are attacked. So if there is enough resistance, the infection does not bloom and you don't get sick.

So simplistically if your generic immune system is in great shape you will probably be one of the people that have minimal symptoms. But hopefully this competition situation might result in enough viral replicates put into play that it triggers the production of specific antibodies and you benefit from any potential future immunity they can provide for some as yet unknown duration.

That's the gist of it, yeah. Though I think there is a difference between symptoms of immune system response (inflammation, fever, enlarged lymph nodes, etc.) and symptoms of disease caused by a given virus. Ideally, a healthy immune system successfully fends off the virus, preventing the disease and developing specific immunity (IgG antibodies) to that virus - though the person may still exhibit symptoms of the innate immune response. (Fever, despite its bad reputation, is actually a good thing. A low-grade fever means that the body's innate immune system is operating to fight off an infection.)

This, also, is the real danger in people going into complete isolation from everything and everyone. The immune system improves by being faced with antigens. We weaken our immune system by trying to live in a bubble, sanitizing everything, etc. There is a certain balance to strike that is somewhere between complete isolation and coughing in each other's faces.

 

[T.Lex]

So simplistically if your generic immune system is in great shape you will probably be one of the people that have minimal symptoms.

This is INGO, so while I want to apologize for picking this particular nit, I don't really have to. My only point of contention is "probably." It isn't THAT simplistic.

Having a healthy immune system - and being generally healthy - improves your chances, I'm not convinced that those points alone increase the chance of having minimal symptoms beyond 50% (which to me is the threshold for "probably").

Genetics, the viral load present in the body, the immune system fighting something else at the same time, drug interactions that may unknowingly mitigate the infection (there's some evidence of that, too)... all of that goes into the "probably" equation. And probably some other things I'm ignorant of.

 

[chipbennett]

It would be naive to think that will be a long term action. Remdesivir is getting the biggest pharmaceutical marketing launch in history free. Most drugs must spend millions to get this kind of name recognition and implementation.

I do know some specifics, that I cannot disclose. But in the long term, you are likely correct. A company cannot just invest $1B in a treatment and have no ROI. Such companies don't stay financially viable.

My dispute is withe those who are asserting some particular price-gouging or other windfall.

 

[nonobaddog]

I am not a doctor, so my understanding here is as a layperson. As I understand it, our immune system is very complex, and includes both innate and acquired immunity. Innate immune response includes neutrophils (a type of innate-response white blood cell) in the bloodstream and macrophages in tissue. The body's histamine response is also part of the innate immune system, and is a general (i.e. not specific) response to antigens.

Here's a pretty good breakdown of innate vs acquired immune response:

https://www.healio.com/hematology-o...system/the-innate-vs-adaptive-immune-response

Yeah, a healthy innate immune response sounds like a good thing to have. Too bad we all age though.
That description seems focused on the blood which is where most infections happen as opposed to the lungs. Those neutrophils, basophils, eosinophils and lymphocytes are all white cells in the blood. That is a different environment than the epithelial-air interface in the lungs.

 

[chipbennett]

Yeah, a healthy innate immune response sounds like a good thing to have. Too bad we all age though.
That description seems focused on the blood which is where most infections happen as opposed to the lungs. Those neutrophils, basophils, eosinophils and lymphocytes are all white cells in the blood. That is a different environment than the epithelial-air interface in the lungs.

As I understand it, that's what things like macrophages are for: immune response in non-blood tissue.

And, yes; genetics and environment are amazing. I catch next to nothing. My wife catches almost everything, as does one of our daughters. I haven't noticed any age-related deterioration in my immune system, but it's probably coming, eventually.

 

[nonobaddog]

I do know some specifics, that I cannot disclose. But in the long term, you are likely correct. A company cannot just invest $1B in a treatment and have no ROI. Such companies don't stay financially viable.

My dispute is withe those who are asserting some particular price-gouging or other windfall.

The windfall doesn't seem to be realized as much by Gilead but rather those in political positions with ties to Gilead pushing remdesivir. This seems to be a real conflict of interest.
I suppose the company is realizing the benefits already too - the stock (GILD) is up significantly.

 

[JettaKnight]

And the left-leaning people, both strangers and personally known, who have wished COVID infection on people generally, and Trump specifically? What of them?

(The posted tweet is an appropriate response to such sentiment.)

If I had to listen to that crap, I'd have a response, but being INGO, they don't show up here, ergo, it'd be pointless to talk to that group.



And if that Tweet was appropriate for them*, then why post it here on INGO? More specifically, why post it in this thread and not the pol. picture thread?



* Anyone wishing a life threatening disease befall another human is a borderline sociopath, which I'm happy to say doesn't come up on INGO. (But, it's not exclusive to the left, either)

The problem here is Trump even discussing medications in any specific way. He doesn't know what he's talking about and as a president he has an influence on people. The bully pulpit should be used wisely, not flippantly

At the very least it caused a drug shortage that was dangerous to people that actually need it.

He can certainly mention that drug trials are ongoing and that he's very hopeful that our doctors and scientists will find better treatments. Hanging his hat on one specific treatment has put him in a position where he has to claim that it has benefit, even though no scientific benefit has been found yet

I both blame him, and blame a gullible public that latches onto to everything he says and if someone counters it, they just yell "fake news!" and claim the MSM is trying to hide the truth to embarrass the president, then have the audacity to call others "sheeple".


It's Tuesday, it's rainy, and I'm in one of those moods.

 

[Ingomike]

WTF does that that have to do with rooting for or against a medical treatment?


That is NOT why we have Tweets about hydrochloroxydril or however you spell it.

Before SCOTUS got involved, Congress - composed of members to whom the electorate delegated this task - passed legislation expanding the commerce clause.

The question was about the politicization of prescription drugs. Because it all goes back to the federal government has amassed so much power over the people that everything affects the people directly leading to this division we see. 50 years ago there were not clear cut teams as there are today, and those teams rose in concert with direct regulation of the people...

 

[T.Lex]

It's Tuesday, it's rainy, and I'm in one of those moods.

Aren't those the lyrics to a Bangles song? Or every Bangles song?

 

[T.Lex]

The question was about the politicization of prescription drugs. Because it all goes back to the federal government has amassed so much power over the people that everything affects the people directly leading to this division we see. 50 years ago there were not clear cut teams as there are today, and those teams rose in concert with direct regulation of the people...

Yeah, but the start date was closer to 100 years ago. And the first steps were with the consent of the governed. Heck, almost every step has been with the consent of the governed.

 

[chipbennett]

Aren't those the lyrics to a Bangles song? Or every Bangles song?

I think Karen Carpenter might have done a cover?

 

[OurDee]

I have watched a clip of Boomers having the current generation trying to operate a rotary dial phone without directions. As a Boomer I remember being taught to use the phone. My instructor even explained the nuances of a party line. I was shown the switch-boards and the operators. I am not saddened to see the kids failing. I am saddened watching the Boomers laughing at ignorance they could solve. I see this in all aspects of our society. We Boomers have failed. We farmed out generation after generation to a government to educate. Education determines the future 100 to 200 years out or the lack of it.

 

[Libertarian01]

Aren't those the lyrics to a Bangles song? Or every Bangles song?

Since you brought it up...

[video=youtube_share;TxrwImCJCqk]https://youtu.be/TxrwImCJCqk[/video]

 

[Ingomike]

WTF does that that have to do with rooting for or against a medical treatment?


That is NOT why we have Tweets about hydrochloroxydril or however you spell it.

Yeah, but the start date was closer to 100 years ago. And the first steps were with the consent of the governed. Heck, almost every step has been with the consent of the governed.

I quests we will just have to disagree. Do you not see historically that the polarization of the last 50 years is far beyond any partisanship of the 50 years before it? We are now at a point that to approve judges, that years of precedent had to be scrapped because a 60% majority could not be had.