February 1, 20223 yr 3 hours ago, EagleVA said: Have you ever noticed how babies study you face before they start talking, they're looking at your lips and facial expressions, that's how they learn to speak. So you think parents are wearing masks inside their homes around their infant children? excellent take
February 1, 20223 yr 20 minutes ago, paco said: So you think parents are wearing masks inside their homes around their infant children? excellent take 300% increase in dumb babies! The numbers don't lie
February 1, 20223 yr 23 minutes ago, paco said: So you think parents are wearing masks inside their homes around their infant children? excellent take Only if they want their kids to get aids...
February 1, 20223 yr 7 minutes ago, Paul852 said: 300% increase in dumb babies! The numbers don't lie
February 1, 20223 yr I think it's funny that the percentages need to be something ridiculous to get these people to take it seriously. "15% increase in dumb babies" just isn't eye-catching.
February 1, 20223 yr The tide is about to turn in favor of the left on the Covid disinformation front. The heavy guns have been brought in.
February 1, 20223 yr 1 minute ago, Procus said: The tide is about to turn in favor of the left on the Covid disinformation front. The heavy guns have been brought in. A bunch of private citizens
February 1, 20223 yr 4 hours ago, Toty said: This was my favorite moment ever on that show. I used to repeat the line until everyone I knew was sick of it and asked me to stop. "They are indeed." Hartman was the best. Frack Andy Dick. He's part of the reason Hartman's dead.
February 1, 20223 yr 1 hour ago, JohnSnowsHair said: Frack Andy Dick. He's part of the reason Hartman's dead.
February 1, 20223 yr 6 hours ago, paco said: So you think parents are wearing masks inside their homes around their infant children? excellent take You just know there are a few idiots out there doing it 😄
February 1, 20223 yr COVID vaccine markedly cuts household transmission, studies show A team led by Clalit Health Services researchers in Tel Aviv studied households consisting of two COVID-19–naïve parents and their unvaccinated children younger than 16 years from Jan 17 to Mar 28, 2021, and households with children younger than 11 years from Jul 11 to Sep 30, 2021. The early period was characterized by dominance of the Alpha (B117) variant and was before the availability of third COVID-19 vaccine doses. During the latter period, the Delta (B1617.2) variant was dominant, and booster doses were extended to the entire population in August. ... Analysis of the direct effect of two doses of vaccine on the risk of parental infection estimated a 94.4% (95% CI, 93.2% to 95.4%) reduction in the risk of COVID-19 infection during the early period and a 86.3% (95% CI, 83.4% to 88.6%) lower risk of documented infection during the late period. Two doses of vaccine in an infected parent who was vaccinated was tied to 72.1% (95% CI, 36.6% to 89.3%) lower odds of infection of one or more unvaccinated children from that parent in the early period and 79.6% (95% CI, 55.9% to 91.8%) lower odds of spread from an infected boosted parent to one or more unvaccinated children in the late period.
February 1, 20223 yr 3 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said: COVID vaccine markedly cuts household transmission, studies show A team led by Clalit Health Services researchers in Tel Aviv studied households consisting of two COVID-19–naïve parents and their unvaccinated children younger than 16 years from Jan 17 to Mar 28, 2021, and households with children younger than 11 years from Jul 11 to Sep 30, 2021. The early period was characterized by dominance of the Alpha (B117) variant and was before the availability of third COVID-19 vaccine doses. During the latter period, the Delta (B1617.2) variant was dominant, and booster doses were extended to the entire population in August. ... Analysis of the direct effect of two doses of vaccine on the risk of parental infection estimated a 94.4% (95% CI, 93.2% to 95.4%) reduction in the risk of COVID-19 infection during the early period and a 86.3% (95% CI, 83.4% to 88.6%) lower risk of documented infection during the late period. Two doses of vaccine in an infected parent who was vaccinated was tied to 72.1% (95% CI, 36.6% to 89.3%) lower odds of infection of one or more unvaccinated children from that parent in the early period and 79.6% (95% CI, 55.9% to 91.8%) lower odds of spread from an infected boosted parent to one or more unvaccinated children in the late period. My PCR from Saturday came back positive on Sunday (rapid was negative yesterday morning). However, I am still asymptomatic (unless you can call my minimal nasal congestion, a typical winter condition for me, as a symptom) a week after exposure when my GF came down with symptoms. Now, I never was really one to get sick before the pandemic. Like, I very rarely ever had more than a slight cold crop up in the winter. I've long thought that, if I did get coronavirus, I would be an asymptomatic carrier, given my history of being largely illness-free. Who knows if that would've been the case without the vaccine. I wasn't willing to take the chance, and if getting vaxxed simply helped keep my viral load low enough to reduce the chance of my transmitting it to others, it was was worth it for the common good. Regardless, I'm pretty damn sure that being vaxxed is helping me get smoothly through a situation with a COVID-positive person living under the same roof as me.
February 1, 20223 yr 36 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: My PCR from Saturday came back positive on Sunday (rapid was negative yesterday morning). However, I am still asymptomatic (unless you can call my minimal nasal congestion, a typical winter condition for me, as a symptom) a week after exposure when my GF came down with symptoms. Now, I never was really one to get sick before the pandemic. Like, I very rarely ever had more than a slight cold crop up in the winter. I've long thought that, if I did get coronavirus, I would be an asymptomatic carrier, given my history of being largely illness-free. Who knows if that would've been the case without the vaccine. I wasn't willing to take the chance, and if getting vaxxed simply helped keep my viral load low enough to reduce the chance of my transmitting it to others, it was was worth it for the common good. Regardless, I'm pretty damn sure that being vaxxed is helping me get smoothly through a situation with a COVID-positive person living under the same roof as me. Unless you are in extremely poor health, Omicron is incredibly mild for nearly everyone who gets it. Glad you're doing well. Remember to wash your hands and take precautions next time, though, to reduce the amount of illness circulating. As someone who is unvaccinated and never gotten Covid, I'd appreciate it if you were more careful.
February 1, 20223 yr 7 minutes ago, Kz! said: As someone who is unvaccinated and never gotten Covid, I'd appreciate it if you were more careful. Basically in personal lockdown mode up here in PA, so I'm sure you'll be fine in VA. I have been staying cautious, never stopped wearing a mask in public, ate 99% of my meals at home, etc. But it's hard when a lot of this really relies on other people staying on top of things, too. I mean, the amount of children I come into contact with in a given week is not ideal. It seems like my GF is the one who bought the virus home since she cropped with symptoms a week ago, but it's hard to tell. Maybe I came home with it initially and was asymptomatic.
February 1, 20223 yr 1 minute ago, EaglesRocker97 said: Basically in personal lockdown mode up here in PA, so I'm sure you'll be fine in VA. I have been staying cautious, never stopped wearing a mask in public, ate 99% of my meals at home, etc. But it's hard when a lot of this really relies on other people staying on top of things, too. I mean, the amount of children I come into contact with in a given weak is not ideal. It seems like my GF is the one who bought the virus home since she cropped with symptoms a week ago, but it's hard to tell. Maybe I came home with it initially and was asymptomatic, so I didn't It is certainly difficult, but if I can do it, as an unvaccinated individual, I really don't think it's too much to ask that those that have received three doses avoid catching the virus. Remember, we're all in this thing together!
February 1, 20223 yr 20 hours ago, Procus said: https://www.jpost.com/health-and-wellness/coronavirus/article-695096 Japan's Kowa says Ivermectin showed 'antiviral effect' against Omicron Clinical trials are ongoing, but promotion of ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment has generated controversy. By REUTERS Published: JANUARY 31, 2022 If we dont politicize everything, give science a chance to work? I would not advocate self medicating, but lets see what the Science actually tells us. At least there are places around the world that are still interested in finding out. If the left had it's way in the US, anything some one on the right proposes is bad and should be ridiculed relentlessly. Then again, thats who they are. TOKYO, Jan 31 (Reuters) - Japanese trading and pharmaceuticals company Kowa Co Ltd (7807.T) on Monday said that anti-parasite drug ivermectin showed an "antiviral effect" against Omicron and other coronavirus variants in joint non-clinical research. The use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19 is currently being investigated in a UK trial run by the University of Oxford. The researchers said on Monday that it was still under way and they did not want to comment further until they have results to report. read more
February 1, 20223 yr 11 minutes ago, Ipiggles said: If we dont politicize everything, give science a chance to work? I would not advocate self medicating, but lets see what the Science actually tells us. At least there are places around the world that are still interested in finding out. If the left had it's way in the US, anything some one on the right proposes is bad and should be ridiculed relentlessly. Then again, thats who they are. TOKYO, Jan 31 (Reuters) - Japanese trading and pharmaceuticals company Kowa Co Ltd (7807.T) on Monday said that anti-parasite drug ivermectin showed an "antiviral effect" against Omicron and other coronavirus variants in joint non-clinical research. The use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19 is currently being investigated in a UK trial run by the University of Oxford. The researchers said on Monday that it was still under way and they did not want to comment further until they have results to report. read more The mind F'd media in the U.S. can ignore the truth only so long. The rest of the world is still curious.
February 1, 20223 yr Good perspective on antigen vs. molecular tests: Quote If you test positive on a rapid COVID test, don’t stop isolating just yet, virologists say What does it mean if a person’s rapid antigen test result comes back positive after five days of isolation due to COVID-19? According to the experts, that person is most likely still carrying a viral load high enough to infect others. "Anytime you’re positive by one of these rapid at-home COVID tests, it means that you’ve still got a really high level of the viral protein, and most experts are interpreting that as a high level of virus present in your nasal passage,” said Matthew Binnicker, director of clinical virology at the Mayo Clinic and president of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology. READ MORE: Website for free virus tests is here. How does it work? The Biden administration is buying a billion rapid antigen tests to ship to American homes, aiming to address the need for increased COVID testing and ease a nationwide shortage of tests. That influx of tests comes on the heels of revised federal guidelines that shortened the isolation period to five days after symptoms started or a positive test, followed by five days of masking. It’s widely known that PCR tests, the highly sensitive polymerase chain reaction tests that detect viral genetic material, can pick up "dead” virus — material not capable of replicating — and yield a positive result for weeks after recovery, even when the person being tested is no longer infectious. But virologists say that’s unlikely to be the case for the rapid antigen tests — which detect certain proteins in the virus and produce results within 30 minutes — that are headed for people’s mailboxes. The odds are very slim, outside of a laboratory setting, that someone who gets a positive result on a rapid antigen test is a non-infectious person shedding large amounts of dead virus, said Kelly Wroblewski, director of infectious disease programs for the Association of Public Health Laboratories. There are several reasons for this. First, according to the Infectious Diseases Society of America, "a major advantage” of rapid antigen tests is that they are somewhat blunt tools for picking up on the virus. Therefore, a positive result tends to mean the person has a high viral load, especially if symptoms appeared. Second, it takes a substantial amount of virus material to register as positive on an antigen test, so a person would need a high level of dead virus sitting around in their nose or throat, and usually that signals a high level of live virus, too. Third, even if someone did have a high level of dead virus hanging around, quantity alone wouldn’t be enough to trigger a positive test — viral proteins tend to lose their shape after a battle with the immune system, which can render them undetectable by antigen tests. In a laboratory setting, a rapid antigen test could detect bits of "dead” virus, said Dr. Sam Dominguez, a pediatric infectious disease doctor and the medical director of the clinical microbiology lab at Children’s Hospital Colorado. READ MORE: Biden administration’s rapid-test rollout doesn’t easily reach those who need it most Federally funded scientists did just that to check whether rapid antigen tests would work as well on omicron as they did on other COVID variants. However, Dominguez said, the odds of dead virus — and dead virus alone — triggering a positive antigen test in a human rather than a petri dish are low. Unlike scientists in a lab, the human body in attack mode isn’t trying to inactivate viruses just so. It’s trying to obliterate them, proteins and all. "RNA can last longer than the proteins,” said Wroblewski, but neither substance is known for sturdiness. Even for scientists it’s somewhat of an art to keep proteins intact after inactivating the virus. "It is not easy,” said Dr. Izabela Ragan, a veterinary scientist at Colorado State University who has branched into human virology, and who has worked for about two years on developing a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2. Her work hinges on killing the virus while preserving the shape of its proteins. The confusion around how to interpret test results stems largely from this conundrum: While there is a wealth of testing options available, there is no foolproof way to gauge whether a person is actually infectious. "I wish there was,” said Binnicker. "There is no test that we have for infectiousness.” The best option is to take a patient’s sample, stick it in a dish of thriving living cells, and see what happens to the healthy cells. If there’s live virus, said Dirk Dittmer, a virologist at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, "then the cells would die, just like the lung cells in your body would die.” But the finicky process takes about three days and can be done only in labs cleared to handle such pathogens, rendering it impractical. Instead, the most widely available tests rely on totally different methods. They fall into two categories, typically called molecular tests and antigen tests. Molecular tests, including PCR, look for specific bits of the virus’s RNA. With the exception of a few over-the-counter options, the tests are processed in a lab. They are capable of detecting tiny bits and pieces of the virus’s genetic material by copying whatever is floating around in a person’s sample over and over, amplifying it "a million- to a trillion-fold,” said Dr. Marie Louise Landry, director of the Clinical Virology Laboratory at Yale New Haven Hospital. That’s why, she explained, "PCR can detect very low levels of viral RNA for weeks and even months after infection, when a patient is no longer infectious.” Rapid antigen tests, on the other hand, look for viral proteins rather than the virus’s genetic material. Many of them look for nucleocapsid or "N” proteins, which are abundant in infected cells and form a protective capsule around the virus’s genetic material. Unlike molecular tests, rapid antigen tests work only with what’s available — no copying or amplifying involved. These tests drag a person’s sample across a special piece of paper that contains a fence of antibodies designed to grab onto the virus’s N proteins. If enough proteins snag on the fence, a visible line of color will appear. "Even single molecules can turn a PCR positive,” said Dr. Michael Mina, an epidemiologist who has been a vocal supporter of rapid testing throughout the pandemic and is now chief science officer for the health care company eMed. But, he added, it takes "about 100,000-1,000,000 molecules to turn the rapid antigen test positive.” But what about the official recommendation that people with COVID should isolate for five days at home — followed by five days of masking? Data from the world of sports, where resources and testing methods abound, offer a glimpse into how variable that period of infectiousness might be. A preliminary study of NBA players and employees found that among 70 people infected with omicron, by Day 5 after their first positive test about 40% of them were still likely infectious. "What we’re recommending is that between Days 5 and 10, you can take an antigen test. If it’s positive, you stay in isolation till Day 10,” said Binnicker. WATCH: A doctor’s advice about testing and masks right now CDC public affairs specialist Jasmine Reed said the best approach is to use an antigen test toward the end of the five-day isolation period if the person’s symptoms have improved. "If your test result is positive, you should continue to isolate until Day 10,” she said. Wroblewski said an important gauge of contagiousness is the simplest: how someone is feeling. "If you have a high fever and a cough, don’t go see people. I feel like we somehow forgot that part,” she said. "Let’s not put so much emphasis on the test and the technology that we forget basic infection control practices: that if you’re sick, stay home.” https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/if-you-test-positive-on-a-rapid-covid-test-dont-stop-isolating-just-yet-virologists-say?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=pbsofficial&utm_campaign=newshour&utm_content=1643657200
February 1, 20223 yr What if these tests are picking up fragments of the virus and not the virus itself?
February 1, 20223 yr Just now, Abracadabra said: What if these tests are picking up fragments of the virus and not the virus itself? Someone didn't read the article...
February 1, 20223 yr Just now, EaglesRocker97 said: Someone didn't read the article... I did read it. The virus is often in various pieces of protein which could be picked as a positive when it's not.
February 1, 20223 yr 19 minutes ago, Abracadabra said: I did read it. The virus is often in various pieces of protein which could be picked as a positive when it's not. Yes, but... Quote The odds are very slim, outside of a laboratory setting, that someone who gets a positive result on a rapid antigen test is a non-infectious person shedding large amounts of dead virus, said Kelly Wroblewski, director of infectious disease programs for the Association of Public Health Laboratories. Quote Third, even if someone did have a high level of dead virus hanging around, quantity alone wouldn’t be enough to trigger a positive test — viral proteins tend to lose their shape after a battle with the immune system, which can render them undetectable by antigen tests. Quote "Even single molecules can turn a PCR positive,” said Dr. Michael Mina, an epidemiologist who has been a vocal supporter of rapid testing throughout the pandemic and is now chief science officer for the health care company eMed. But, he added, it takes "about 100,000-1,000,000 molecules to turn the rapid antigen test positive.” I.E., even if the rapid test is picking up dead virus, the threshold is so high that there is very likely a lot of living virus in your system as well. PCR, on the other hand, is so sensitive that it is possible to pick up small amounts of dead virus when you're not contagious. But if you're positive on a rapid test, you're most likely contagious.
Create an account or sign in to comment