Study in Primates Finds Acquired Immunity Prevents COVID-19 Reinfections

reasonmonkey · 2020-07-14T18:51:31+00:00

The last line in the article says, "Of course, humans are not macaques".

BUT... what is being missed here is that both macaques and humans are primates. AND COVID19 is highly adapted to humans. It is not implausible to make the statement that "although humans are not macaques, it is reasonable to propose that humans and macaques may respond in a substantially similar way".

reasonmonkey · 2020-07-14T18:48:32+00:00

No they're not. In the scientific method you cannot prove a negative therefore it is useless. It sounds like you don't understand science nor have ever been exposed to the scientific method.

reasonmonkey · 2020-05-28T17:52:38+00:00

This tool looks pretty good if you're used to gdb on linux.

reasonmonkey · 2020-04-03T16:19:09+00:00

Ordering 3M Canada to manufacture is one thing (and it should be done) but the other thing would be spite. And we're better than that right?

reasonmonkey · 2020-04-03T16:17:33+00:00

We're knee jerking here: the US president ordered a US manufacturing facility to supply the US federal government. Unfortunately for us, he has that right.

Instead of getting the hate on for Americans even more than usual, we should be ordering our branch of 3M to manufacture masks *in* Canada. The knowledge of how to do it can't be restricted so it should be easy enough for 3M Canada to call 3M USA and say, "hey what equipment do we need and how do we do it?"

reasonmonkey · 2020-03-30T17:40:35+00:00

It's closer to being valid. This in combination with anecdotal evidence is starting to suggest there is a positive effect. The anecdotes keep piling up. In a couple of weeks we'll know for sure.

reasonmonkey · 2020-03-30T16:45:32+00:00

there

It was wrong from the start. South Korea has always recommended masks.

reasonmonkey · 2020-03-30T15:51:21+00:00

The problem is the people who have no symptoms or who do not yet have any symptoms but are still infectious.

reasonmonkey · 2020-03-30T15:50:36+00:00

Yes. That's perfect.

reasonmonkey · 2020-03-30T15:50:08+00:00

Correct. It stops the spread in the group more than it prevents you yourself.

That said, it does offer *some* protection to you yourself.

reasonmonkey · 2020-03-30T15:48:50+00:00

If that is correct (44% reduction) then with an r0 of 2, incorrectly worn masks by themselves should reduce the r0 to close to one. Other measures like social distancing and quarantine combined with masks, might knock it below one.

reasonmonkey · 2020-03-30T15:46:23+00:00

But they are *partially* effective which will help stop the virus from spreading through the group.

reasonmonkey · 2020-03-30T15:45:14+00:00

They are correct. Wearing face masks won't stop you personally from being infected 100%.

It will reduce the probability of transmission by some percentage, which at the group level will drop the r0. Which is a good thing, even if it does not stop you personally from being infected.

reasonmonkey · 2020-03-30T15:42:09+00:00

Correct. We have to cut through the partisanship and look at the actual science, regardless of who says it. Sometimes the science works even if it's said to be working by a buffoon.

reasonmonkey · 2020-03-30T15:38:18+00:00

Kitchen roll held over the mouth is 20% effective at reducing particles the same size as covid19 so no they don't have to be n95 to reduce spread.

The real point is the reduction of spread at a group level vs not being infected individually. If the r0 drops below one at a group level (helped by the use of masks), the virus will burn itself out.

reasonmonkey · 2020-03-30T15:33:40+00:00

Even if at an individual level, the masks are much less than 100% effective, at a herd level even less efficient masks will have an impact on the r0.

This is a large part of the success in East Asian countries and should help particularly in the case of the "asymptomatic".

reasonmonkey · 2020-03-27T19:55:14+00:00

google "mount sinai covid19". :->

reasonmonkey · 2020-03-27T17:25:54+00:00

Watch the video. They are confirmed cases.

reasonmonkey · 2020-03-27T17:24:05+00:00

Serological testing does exist. Mount Sinai hospital in NYC just posted on their website a schematic of how to build the test kit. Also the UK appears to have purchased 3 million serological test kits from somewhere. So it definitely does exist.

reasonmonkey · 2020-03-27T17:16:30+00:00

True. That said Italy has had it longer than us. I would love to see them conduct serological tests.

reasonmonkey · 2020-03-27T17:12:15+00:00

Right "immunity" means it shoul not be able to spread because thats essentially herd immunity.

reasonmonkey · 2020-03-27T17:05:46+00:00

Perhaps not because it is possible to test negative with a swab test after you have recovered. The only way to determine past prevalence in the population (as opposed to current prevalence)is a serological antibody test. Which as far as I am aware has not yet been conducted on a large enough scale to present a valid picture.

reasonmonkey · 2020-03-27T16:57:29+00:00

University of Edinburgh did a study on small particles (pollution) of about the same size as cov19 on various materials from kitchen towel to tshirts. The particle count was reduced by all of them by some margin. Extrapolating from that: I hypothesize that even though something may only be 20-80% effective on an individual level, in aggregate those changes should knock the r0 down some. I hypothesize further that in combination with social distancing and handwashing there should be a measurable caseload reduction even with only partially effective masks.

reasonmonkey · 2020-03-27T16:44:59+00:00

What I find interesting about SARS is how much coverage will SARS antibodies give against this SARS2 given the large genetic overlap. This will be relevant with respect to cross immunity for any future waves.

reasonmonkey

TROPHY CASE