Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn

"Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases for more than three decades, said Wednesday, “We will have coronavirus in the fall. I am convinced of that.” He previously said the “ultimate game changer” will be a vaccine, but that could take 12 to 18 months."

quote:


As far as I know there is no vaccine for any of the coronaviruses. Some which include the common cold.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

I'm making a wild guess here: events like WWI, Pearl Harbor and 9/11 literally changed the World. Now there is a new menace that (I'm being cynical here) can cripple the economy, the collective psyche, and flatten whole nations. I wouldn't be surprised if the new concentrated BIG effort will be to find either a cure or a way to prevent another pandemic. Finding an overall prevention for a rapidly mutating virus like the flu's one wasn't worth, in the past, the time and the money (leading to the "plan B" effort of producing vaccines for the strain of the year). Now it is.

Well, we shall see.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

The Big Three you mention were things that could be dealt with in a direct manner.
There has been a concerted world wide effort to find a cure for cancer for almost the entirety of my lifetime with no success yet.
I don't think (and I am not a medical professional) that fighting diseases is quite as direct a process as the referenced Big Three.

quote:


Yes, I changed the red button back to green.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn

quote:

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn

Cuomo Says 21 Percent of Those Tested in N.Y.C. Had Virus Antibodies
Apr 23, 2020

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/nyregion/coronavirus-new-york-update.html

"About 21 percent of roughly 1,300 people in New York City who were tested for coronavirus antibodies this week tested positive, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo said on Thursday.

The results come from a state program that randomly tested 3,000 supermarket customers across New York State. Nearly 14 percent of those tests came back positive, Mr. Cuomo said.

If those numbers translate to the true incidence of coronavirus, they would mean that more than 1.7 million people in New York City, and more than 2.6 million people statewide, have already been infected.

These numbers are far greater than the 250,000 confirmed cases of the virus itself that the state has recorded.

They would also mean that the fatality rate from the virus is relatively low — about 0.5 percent, Mr. Cuomo said."

No comments???????????????????

This goes along with the studies coming out of California.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

Be warned: the contents will not change.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

quote:

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

Be warned: the contents will not change.

According to Bill Dolson it will or you will be the one to get the thread locked.

Sorry you missed my point.

It wasn't that the effort won't be made...it was not to be expectant of results.

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

Random testing advocated to help define opening measures after lockdowns.

We are flying blind in the fight against Covid-19. The number of cases is surely much greater than what we see and what is being relied on to provide direction for devising and implementing policy.

But is the true number two to three times higher, as some experts say? More like 10 times, as other analysts calculate? Or perhaps as much as 50 to 100 times higher, as indicated by early random testing in Iceland; a population study of Vò, Italy; and some recent results in California?

The recent Nobel in economic science went to Abhijit Banerjee, Esther Duflo and Michael Kremer, researchers using random control trials, the mainstay of scientific medicine. Their work dramatizes how misleading it can be, for example, to measure disease prevalence by reference to those who seek treatment at rural health clinics, omitting the multitudes who have no access.

Local random tests should be undertaken immediately. University researchers, working with local governments or operating independently, could conduct simple randomization, testing perhaps 5,000 or 10,000 individuals. We would quickly learn whether total cases were five times or 50 times current estimates in those areas.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/24/opinion/coronavirus-testing.html?rref=opinion&module=Ribbon&version=context®ion=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&pgtype=Multimedia

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

That US Navy Captain should not be reinstated. Because of his letter, it became known that the USS Rooseveldt could not be deployed. The Chinese government is now conducting naval operations with no US carrier battle group able to respond. It also pins the USS Roosevelt to a specific place. How is that for operational security? Loose lips sink ships.

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

This is a surprise.

Navy leaders recommend reinstating the Roosevelt captain fired over a virus warning.

Capt. Brett E. Crozier should be restored to command of the aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt, the Navy’s top officials recommended on Friday.
But Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper, who was briefed on the recommendations, has asked for more time to consider whether he will sign off on the reinstatement of the captain of the nuclear-powered carrier.

A reinstatement of Captain Crozier would be a stunning turnaround in a story that has seized the attention of the Navy, the overall military and even a nation grappling with the coronavirus. From the moment that his letter pleading for help from Navy officials first became public, Captain Crozier has taken on the role of an unlikely hero, willing to risk his career for the sake of his sailors.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/24/us/coronavirus-us-usa-updates.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage#link-4f099d98

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

That US Navy Captain should not be reinstated. Because of his letter, it became known that the USS Rooseveldt could not be deployed. The Chinese government is now conducting naval operations with no US carrier battle group able to respond. It also pins the USS Roosevelt to a specific place. How is that for operational security? Loose lips sink ships.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

One can only hope MM isn't too dense to understand that I have him blocked.

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

Random testing advocated to help define opening measures after lockdowns.

We are flying blind in the fight against Covid-19. The number of cases is surely much greater than what we see and what is being relied on to provide direction for devising and implementing policy.

But is the true number two to three times higher, as some experts say? More like 10 times, as other analysts calculate? Or perhaps as much as 50 to 100 times higher, as indicated by early random testing in Iceland; a population study of Vò, Italy; and some recent results in California?

The recent Nobel in economic science went to Abhijit Banerjee, Esther Duflo and Michael Kremer, researchers using random control trials, the mainstay of scientific medicine. Their work dramatizes how misleading it can be, for example, to measure disease prevalence by reference to those who seek treatment at rural health clinics, omitting the multitudes who have no access.

Local random tests should be undertaken immediately. University researchers, working with local governments or operating independently, could conduct simple randomization, testing perhaps 5,000 or 10,000 individuals. We would quickly learn whether total cases were five times or 50 times current estimates in those areas.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/24/opinion/coronavirus-testing.html?rref=opinion&module=Ribbon&version=context®ion=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&pgtype=Multimedia

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

Random testing advocated to help define opening measures after lockdowns.

We are flying blind in the fight against Covid-19. The number of cases is surely much greater than what we see and what is being relied on to provide direction for devising and implementing policy.

But is the true number two to three times higher, as some experts say? More like 10 times, as other analysts calculate? Or perhaps as much as 50 to 100 times higher, as indicated by early random testing in Iceland; a population study of Vò, Italy; and some recent results in California?

The recent Nobel in economic science went to Abhijit Banerjee, Esther Duflo and Michael Kremer, researchers using random control trials, the mainstay of scientific medicine. Their work dramatizes how misleading it can be, for example, to measure disease prevalence by reference to those who seek treatment at rural health clinics, omitting the multitudes who have no access.

Local random tests should be undertaken immediately. University researchers, working with local governments or operating independently, could conduct simple randomization, testing perhaps 5,000 or 10,000 individuals. We would quickly learn whether total cases were five times or 50 times current estimates in those areas.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/24/opinion/coronavirus-testing.html?rref=opinion&module=Ribbon&version=context®ion=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&pgtype=Multimedia

Apples and oranges, my man. Apples and oranges.

And, no, I won't spend any more time than the hour I did this morning to elaborate on the issues with Mario Cuomo's 'quick and dirty' serology testing. If you and others blaze on by and don't appreciate my POV here, that's fine with me. But you're off the mark by a long shot.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

That US Navy Captain should not be reinstated. Because of his letter, it became known that the USS Rooseveldt could not be deployed. The Chinese government is now conducting naval operations with no US carrier battle group able to respond. It also pins the USS Roosevelt to a specific place. How is that for operational security? Loose lips sink ships.

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

Random testing advocated to help define opening measures after lockdowns.

We are flying blind in the fight against Covid-19. The number of cases is surely much greater than what we see and what is being relied on to provide direction for devising and implementing policy.

But is the true number two to three times higher, as some experts say? More like 10 times, as other analysts calculate? Or perhaps as much as 50 to 100 times higher, as indicated by early random testing in Iceland; a population study of Vò, Italy; and some recent results in California?

The recent Nobel in economic science went to Abhijit Banerjee, Esther Duflo and Michael Kremer, researchers using random control trials, the mainstay of scientific medicine. Their work dramatizes how misleading it can be, for example, to measure disease prevalence by reference to those who seek treatment at rural health clinics, omitting the multitudes who have no access.

Local random tests should be undertaken immediately. University researchers, working with local governments or operating independently, could conduct simple randomization, testing perhaps 5,000 or 10,000 individuals. We would quickly learn whether total cases were five times or 50 times current estimates in those areas.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/24/opinion/coronavirus-testing.html?rref=opinion&module=Ribbon&version=context®ion=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&pgtype=Multimedia

Apples and oranges, my man. Apples and oranges.

And, no, I won't spend any more time than the hour I did this morning to elaborate on the issues with Mario Cuomo's 'quick and dirty' serology testing. If you and others blaze on by and don't appreciate my POV here, that's fine with me. But you're off the mark by a long shot.

I'm not on or off the mark. I'm not an expert. I'm just looking for hope among experts who are working on this right now.

Your POV is fine, and very useful, but it's not the only one and I'm surprised you think this is a counter to your posts. It's just posting what out there.

We will have to know how many people have had it at some point.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

Random testing advocated to help define opening measures after lockdowns.

We are flying blind in the fight against Covid-19. The number of cases is surely much greater than what we see and what is being relied on to provide direction for devising and implementing policy.

But is the true number two to three times higher, as some experts say? More like 10 times, as other analysts calculate? Or perhaps as much as 50 to 100 times higher, as indicated by early random testing in Iceland; a population study of Vò, Italy; and some recent results in California?

The recent Nobel in economic science went to Abhijit Banerjee, Esther Duflo and Michael Kremer, researchers using random control trials, the mainstay of scientific medicine. Their work dramatizes how misleading it can be, for example, to measure disease prevalence by reference to those who seek treatment at rural health clinics, omitting the multitudes who have no access.

Local random tests should be undertaken immediately. University researchers, working with local governments or operating independently, could conduct simple randomization, testing perhaps 5,000 or 10,000 individuals. We would quickly learn whether total cases were five times or 50 times current estimates in those areas.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/24/opinion/coronavirus-testing.html?rref=opinion&module=Ribbon&version=context®ion=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&pgtype=Multimedia

Apples and oranges, my man. Apples and oranges.

And, no, I won't spend any more time than the hour I did this morning to elaborate on the issues with Mario Cuomo's 'quick and dirty' serology testing. If you and others blaze on by and don't appreciate my POV here, that's fine with me. But you're off the mark by a long shot.

I'm not on or off the mark. I'm not an expert. I'm just looking for hope among experts who are working on this right now.

Your POV is fine, and very useful, but it's not the only one and I'm surprised you think this is a counter to your posts. It's just posting what out there.

We will have to know how many people have had it at some point.

Agreed. You're not an expert. Disagreed. You are off the mark still. No the reference isn't a counter to my posts. By omission, not acknowledging the effort of meaningful replies is. There are plenty of 'what's out there' to go around. Weigh random indecipherable internet garbage through whatever lens you see fit. But I won't waste my time trying to point you in the right direction any further.