Jump to content

Just curious, anyone have a plan, or preps for global pandemic?


Covid-19 Vaccine Survey  

30 members have voted

  1. 1. Your Vaccine Status is:

    • Fully vaccinated
    • Partially vaccinated
    • Not Vaccinated
  2. 2. If not (fully) vaccinated, your reason(s) for your decision (check all that apply):

    • Not Applicable - I'm vaccinated
    • The rapid vaccine development process makes me distrust them
    • I'm worried about vaccine side effects
    • I don't think I'm at much risk of getting a covid infection
    • I don't believe a covid infection is a serious risk for someone like me
    • I'm waiting until the vaccines receive final approval
    • Fear of needles
    • A medical condition prevents me from getting vaccines
    • Bad reaction to the first dose of the covid vaccine
    • I already had COVID-19 and don't think I need the vaccine for protection
    • Vaccine not available where I live
  3. 3. Are you OK with having your CR forum name included on a list of members who have/haven't chosen to be vaccinated?

    • Yes
    • No

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Thanks all. My son had a continuous fever for 3 days but as of now it’s gone and his appetite is back so things are looking good. I’ll probably get him antibody tested in a couple weeks just to satisfy my curiosity. It was intense there for a while, he was having hallucinations at one point, and really miserable.  For what it’s worth, while he was sick and stuck in bed, his O2 saturation was very consistently at 95, and is back to 99 again now. He also reported that it felt like something was stuck in his throat.  If it was c19 I’ll probably have it soon.

In the meantime...

More than 77,000 new cases of coronavirus were reported in the US on Thursday, the most ever

Edited by Gordo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gordo, keep us posted!

My wife got recently tested for antibodies and it was negative. Most probably, I'm negative as well. During, and before the outbreak, I noticed that the mind tended to construe every small nuisance signal from the body as the Covid19 infection. I don't know how many times we measured our temperature. But high fever and very sore throat is not a small signal, although SARS-COV2 is not the only bug around.

Good move using the oximeter, I'll have to order one soon, since we're probably going to live together with this new virus for a while.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

New study on antibodies: COVID-19 Antibodies Fade Quickly, U.S. Study Says

July 23, 2020 -- People who recover from COVID-19 seem to develop antibodies that confer some type of immunity, but the antibody levels drop quickly, according to a new report from UCLA.

The research team published a short letter on Tuesday in the New England Journal of Medicine, adding their observations to the recent conversation about COVID-19 antibodies and the rapid decay in levels.

“The results call for caution regarding antibody-based ‘immunity passports,’ herd immunity, and perhaps vaccine durability, especially in light of short-lived immunity against common human coronaviruses,” they wrote.

The team studied antibody levels in 34 people who previously had COVID-19. Between ages 21-68, their average age was 43, and most had mild illness. Two people received supplemental oxygen.

The research team took two measurements — one a little over a month after the onset of symptoms and the other about three months after symptoms began. So far, researchers have reported that antibodies form within about 2 weeks of symptoms starting.

All of the participants had varying levels of antibodies, and some levels declined more rapidly than others. The average decline corresponded with a half-life of about 73 days, they wrote.

The study period was 90 days, so additional studies are needed to see the long-term effects, they added, but it’s likely that antibodies continue to decline after that.

Ultimately, antibody levels likely don’t last for a long time after a COVID-19 infection, especially for those who have a mild illness, which makes up the majority of cases. This aligns with other recent studies, they wrote.

At the same time, a decline in antibodies doesn’t necessarily mean that protection disappears entirely or that a vaccine won’t be effective. Certain immune system cells store information about viruses to create new antibodies if needed, according to The Associated Press.

“This shouldn’t dissuade us from pursuing a vaccine,” Buddy Creech, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University, told the news outlet. “Antibodies are only a part of the story.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, corybroo said:

A visualization of the count for the top 10 countries by day:    How confirmed cases of coronavirus have spread

That is really interesting because it gives you a sense of the acceleration in each country.  Sad to see India surging most recently considering its poverty and 1.3 billion person population. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MedicalXpress has an article about using decoys to protect against infection In cell studies, seaweed extract outperforms remdesivir in blocking COVID-19 virus  The compounds are found in brown seaweed.

In a test of antiviral effectiveness against the virus that causes COVID-19, an extract from edible seaweeds substantially outperformed remdesivir, the current standard antiviral used to combat the disease

[SARS-CoV-2]  could just as easily be persuaded to lock onto a decoy molecule that offers a similar fit. The neutralized virus would be trapped and eventually degrade naturally.

The Cell Discovery paper tests antiviral activity in three variants of heparin (heparin, trisulfated heparin, and a non-anticoagulant low molecular weight heparin) and two fucoidans (RPI-27 and RPI-28) extracted from seaweed. All five compounds are long chains of sugar molecules known as sulfated polysaccharides

RPI-27 yielded an EC50 value of approximately 83 nanomolar, while a similar previously published and independent in vitro test of remdesivir on the same mammalian cells yielded an EC50 of 770 nanomolar.

"The current thinking is that the COVID-19 infection starts in the nose, and either of these substances could be the basis for a nasal spray. If you could simply treat the infection early, or even treat before you have the infection, you would have a way of blocking it before it enters the body."

"Sulfated polysaccharides effectively inhibit SARS-CoV-2 in vitro" was published in Cell Discovery.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gordo said:

Another crazy idea that might work, what if everyone just plugged their noses?

LOL.  It's amazing how much clickbait headlines are generated in connection with the pandemic.  But since most of the outdoor infections spread through contaminated surfaces, the fingers plugging one's nose would be a great conduit of infection 🙂

Benefits and Safety of Nasal Saline Irrigations in a Pandemic—Washing COVID-19 Away



Link to comment
Share on other sites

An interesting study supporting the emerging consensus that past exposure to coronaviruses confers immunity to Covid-19 through T-cell memory:

SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell immunity in cases of COVID-19 and SARS, and uninfected controls

Memory T cells induced by previous pathogens can shape the susceptibility to, and clinical severity of, subsequent infections1. Little is known about the presence of pre-existing memory T cells in humans with the potential to recognize SARS-CoV-2. Here, we first studied T cell responses to structural (nucleocapsid protein, NP) and non-structural (NSP-7 and NSP13 of ORF1) regions of SARS-CoV-2 in COVID-19 convalescents (n=36). In all of them we demonstrated the presence of CD4 and CD8 T cells recognizing multiple regions of the NP protein. We then showed that SARS-recovered patients (n=23) still possess long-lasting memory T cells reactive to SARS-NP 17 years after the 2003 outbreak, which displayed robust cross-reactivity to SARS-CoV-2 NP. Surprisingly, we also frequently detected SARS-CoV-2 specific T cells in individuals with no history of SARS, COVID-19 or contact with SARS/COVID-19 patients (n=37). SARS-CoV-2 T cells in uninfected donors exhibited a different pattern of immunodominance, frequently targeting the ORF-1-coded proteins NSP7 and 13 as well as the NP structural protein. Epitope characterization of NSP7-specific T cells showed recognition of protein fragments with low homology to “common cold” human coronaviruses but conserved amongst animal betacoranaviruses. Thus, infection with betacoronaviruses induces multispecific and long-lasting T cell immunity to the structural protein NP.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was surprised to see a YouTube advertisement from the State of Pennsylvania today promoting this shared work program:


(interesting that they are targeting people who watch videos about the economy on YouTube, haha)

I'm not sure if this is a brand new program or not, but it is similar to Germany's approach to keeping unemployment under control during the pandemic (something I previously posted about in this thread).


Unrelated, but Dr. Fauchi in a recent interview referenced this Lancet study (meta analysis) with regard to face masks that I didn't remember seeing previously:
Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis


Our search identified 172 observational studies across 16 countries and six continents, with no randomised controlled trials and 44 relevant comparative studies in health-care and non-health-care settings (n=25 697 patients). Transmission of viruses was lower with physical distancing of 1 m or more, compared with a distance of less than 1 m (n=10 736, pooled adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·18, 95% CI 0·09 to 0·38; risk difference [RD] −10·2%, 95% CI −11·5 to −7·5; moderate certainty); protection was increased as distance was lengthened (change in relative risk [RR] 2·02 per m; pinteraction=0·041; moderate certainty). Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD −14·3%, −15·9 to −10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks; pinteraction=0·090; posterior probability >95%, low certainty). Eye protection also was associated with less infection (n=3713; aOR 0·22, 95% CI 0·12 to 0·39, RD −10·6%, 95% CI −12·5 to −7·7; low certainty). Unadjusted studies and subgroup and sensitivity analyses showed similar findings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Gordo said:

Unrelated, but Dr. Fauchi in a recent interview referenced this Lancet study (meta analysis) with regard to face masks that I didn't remember seeing previously

Yeah, well.  This just tells you how politics are driving this, not science.  Basically it has become a Left/Right wedge and the Left has attacked anyone who questions their narrative, using the media and social media to beat people into submission or silence experts who disagree.

Until a couple of months ago the vast majority of studies did not support the use of masks by healthy people, particularly outside.  It has been the official position of every medical group I know, including the CDC and WHO, for as long as can remember.

Now that the lockdowns were shown to be largely ineffective at reducing deaths (see NY and Italy as examples) and there is fear that the blame for the crashed economy may land on those who pushed for lockdowns, the narrative has shifted to masks.  This is why organizations like the CDC and WHO are being bullied into changing their official policies on masks for healthy people in open environments, based on new and generally ridiculous data from lab studies.  There are ongoing campaigns to remove opposing information from the web, so that nothing can contradict the narrative.

Fauci's earlier statement on masks, for example, was edited out of the current version of the CBS article, but you can still find it here.

Similarly, WHO was bullied into changing their position, and so is every other group or expert who contradicts the current narrative.  Here is an example from the CIDRAP:

Masks-for-all for COVID-19 not based on sound data


Editor’s Note: The authors added the following statement on Jul 16.

The authors and CIDRAP have received requests in recent weeks to remove this article from the CIDRAP website. Reasons have included: (1) we don’t truly know that cloth masks (face coverings) are not effective, since the data are so limited, (2) wearing a cloth mask or face covering is better than doing nothing, (3) the article is being used by individuals and groups to support non-mask wearing where mandated and (4) there are now many modeling studies suggesting that cloth masks or face coverings could be effective at flattening the curve and preventing many cases of infection.

If the data are limited, how can we say face coverings are likely not effective?

We agree that the data supporting the effectiveness of a cloth mask or face covering are very limited. We do, however, have data from laboratory studies that indicate cloth masks or face coverings offer very low filter collection efficiency for the smaller inhalable particles we believe are largely responsible for transmission, particularly from pre- or asymptomatic individuals who are not coughing or sneezing. At the time we wrote this article, we were unable to locate any well-performed studies of cloth mask leakage when worn on the face—either inward or outward leakage. As far as we know, these data are still lacking.

The guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for face coverings initially did not have any citations for studies of cloth material efficiency or fit, but some references have been added since the guidelines were first posted. We reviewed these and found that many employ very crude, non-standardized methods (Anfinrud 2020, Davies 2013, Konda 2020, Aydin 2020, Ma 2020) or are not relevant to cloth face coverings because they evaluate respirators or surgical masks (Leung 2020, Johnson 2009, Green 2012).

The CDC failed to reference the National Academies of Sciences Rapid Expert Consultation on the Effectiveness of Fabric Masks for the COVID-19 Pandemic (NAS 2020), which concludes, “The evidence from…laboratory filtration studies suggests that such fabric masks may reduce the transmission of larger respiratory droplets. There is little evidence regarding the transmission of small aerosolized particulates of the size potentially exhaled by asymptomatic or presymptomatic individuals with COVID-19.” As well, the CDC neglected to mention a well-done study of cloth material filter performance by Rengasamy et al (2014), which we reviewed in our article. ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TomBAvoider said:

If you want to be able to continue counting on your fingers, you might want to avoid COVID-19, just in case:

COVID-19 survivor who spent 64 days in Burbank hospital, had most of his fingers amputated: ‘This can happen to you’

A tragedy, indeed.  But if you are afraid of this happening, then definitely don't miss your flu shot:

20-year-old Virginia man has leg amputated after severe complications from flu

As to the masks, speaking loudly through a box is not good data and hardly justifies the political attacks which led to the change of long-standing recommendations by medical groups, or the personal attacks on those who publicly challenge the Left's narrative and the demands for censorship and suppression of information I referred to above.

And here is one of the authors of a new study out of Oxford, which supports the emerging consensus on t-cell immunity and argues that it is likely already present in a number of areas:

We may already have herd immunity – an interview with Professor Sunetra Gupta


The principle of protection from exposure to related viruses, and indeed any kind of pathogen, is one that we’ve known for a very long time. The very first vaccine we had, which is smallpox, was based on the idea that cowpox protects against smallpox. This idea was already there well in advance of us knowing that smallpox was a virus – and indeed in advance of germ theory having been properly established. So we knew about this cross protection even before we knew that diseases were caused by germs. It’s a very old idea.

In my own studies, beginning with malaria and then later thinking about flu, the role of cross-immunity in protecting against disease seemed to be something that very much needed to be factored into our thinking. Most of the people who die from malaria are children, and they die upon their first exposure, because they have no immunity at that stage. That was one of the first things that struck me when I was working on malaria.

And then later when I was working on flu, it seemed to me a very good way of explaining why the 1918 flu had killed so many people, but why that didn’t seem to be repeating itself, was that it was likely that people hadn’t been exposed to flu. Many people would have not had the flu at all. So then that built up this population of naive immunity in people under the age of thirty who were very badly affected when the pandemic came through.

Having those ideas in mind, when the Covid-19 virus started to spread, I was pretty certain it wouldn’t have a huge, devastating impact in terms of mortality, because we had all these other coronaviruses circulating.

What I didn’t anticipate was that some of our responses to previous exposure to seasonal coronaviruses might actually protect us from infection. It’s one thing to get infected and not ill, but what the new studies are showing is that people are actually fighting off infection. So at an even more basic level, the pre-existing antibodies or T-cell responses against coronaviruses seem to protect against infection, not just the outcome of infection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Ron Put said:

Until a couple of months ago the vast majority of studies did not support the use of masks by healthy people

I think the latest consensus is that yes, masks are for the sick, and since 40% of infected people have no symptoms but apparently spread it, you don’t know who needs a mask, therefore everyone needs a mask. Asymptomatic and presymptomatic people transmit most COVID-19 infections: Study

Counterpoint, In Sweden mask use is minimal in almost all settings.

And Sweden: the One Chart That Matters


Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Gordo said:

I think the latest consensus is that yes, masks are for the sick, and since 40% of infected people have no symptoms but apparently spread it, you don’t know who needs a mask, therefore everyone needs a mask. Asymptomatic and presymptomatic people transmit most COVID-19 infections: Study

Counterpoint, In Sweden mask use is minimal in almost all settings.

And Sweden: the One Chart That Matters


I have tended to agree with the Swedes approach. Considering the, See previous post,  Very limited death rates amongst most age groups it seemed like the correct approach. Isolate the vulnerable not the younger folks nor even Middle Ages. But the older population most definitely need to stay at home, social distance etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this study of 100 middle aged (median around 49 yrs) recovered people, 78% have evidence of new cardiac issues and/or ongoing cardiac inflammation. Regardless of pre-existing conditions and Covid-19 severity. These were people with no pre-existing cardiac workups/tests, only 1/3rd of which were hospitalized for Covid-19, so many with mild symptoms.


Outcomes of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients Recently Recovered From Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)


Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Mike41 said:

I have tended to agree with the Swedes approach

I do too 🙂  It's much more sensible and frankly, everyone should practice it not just for Covid-19, but also for the flu, which can also be deadly.  Sick people should not go to the office and should wear masks as a courtesy to others if they are going to be in confined areas, like airplanes.


14 hours ago, Gordo said:

I think the latest consensus is that yes, masks are for the sick, and since 40% of infected people have no symptoms but apparently spread it, you don’t know who needs a mask, therefore everyone needs a mask.

I have to disagree with this.  Both the WHO and the CDC were bullied into changing their long-standing positions by political pressure from the left, using poor science, just as was the case with the lockdown. WHO still maintains that there is no clear evidence that asymptomatic carriers are significant spreaders and there isn't any good evidence that there are. But after WHO's or CDC's statements, a few "experts" led a Twitter campaign further amplified to a crescendo by the media narrative which rotated the same doubting "experts," and here we are.  Who wants to jeopardize their career by standing their ground, at a high cost and no gain?

A study on infectivity of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers

In summary, all the 455 contacts were excluded from SARS-CoV-2 infection and we conclude that the infectivity of some asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers might be weak.

Commentary in Pediatrics: Children don't transmit COVID-19, schools should reopen in fall


Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, BrianA said:

In this study of 100 middle aged (median around 49 yrs) recovered people, 78% have evidence of new cardiac issues and/or ongoing cardiac inflammation.

We've discussed this same issue before if I remember.  It's a known effect of most viral infections. Here is another example:

Influenza and Cardiovascular Disease

The role of infectious agents in atherosclerosis has been recognized for more than a century. William Osler 3 was one of the first to propose a major role for acute infection in the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis. In the early 20th century, a few pioneer scientists used several infectious agents (Salmonella typhi, streptococci, etc.) to induce atherosclerosis in animal models. By the late 1970s, scientists began to study the role of herpesviruses and Chlamydia pneumoniae and, later, of Helicobacter pylori, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, Porphyromonas gingivalis, enterovirus, and a growing list of other agents in atherogenesis (Table I). 4–11 This effort coincided with the emergence of new evidence pointing to atherosclerosis as an inflammatory disease.


While on the subject of cardiovascular disease, here are the consequences of lockdown and spreading fear:

Fear of Coronavirus Disease 2019—An Emerging Cardiac Risk

The risk of acquiring COVID-19 infection in the hospital is estimated at less than 1%,6 and the mean risk of death from the virus also appears less than 1%.1 For an individual, the conditional probability of these 2 events is exceedingly small. In contrast, the probability of dying of a myocardial infarction in the absence of evidence-based treatments is greater than 30%,7 with the risk decreasing to approximately 5% with revascularization and modern, evidence-based pharmacotherapy and critical care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what to think about this. 


Some scientists are taking a DIY coronavirus vaccine, and nobody knows if it’s legal or if it works

Famed geneticist George Church and at least 20 others didn’t want to wait for the results of clinical trials: “I think we are at much bigger risk from covid.”

Edited by Thomas G
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Twitter ...



My Hydroxychloroquine Deep Dive - long thread

Gotta start with this chart many of you have seen by now

In early June after months of following articles, treatment protocols, declarations, etc. I was curious about how the countries lined up. For the most part, it's accuratepic.twitter.com/BjQ14XV7x2

— Gummi Bear (@gummibear737) July 16, 2020


Link to comment
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.

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.


  • Create New...