D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Spartan
I'm not sure what happens when a state runs out of ICU beds. Perhaps they just bring in the meat trucks?

>>>Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R) on Tuesday revealed that his state has run out of intensive care unit (ICU) beds to treat COVID-19 patients amid a surge of new cases.

Hutchinson said during a press conference that the delta variant has contributed to the rise, noting that many of those hospitalized represent younger age groups and reflect the state's low vaccination rate. More than 92 percent of coronavirus cases and 90 percent of deaths are occurring among the unvaccinated, he added.<<<

Isn't Arkansas the place with like 40 ICU beds total throughout the state? Crazy.
 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Spartan
I feel like Fox News producers are just sitting in a room going "wonder what level on BS we can get them to believe next?" and "I can't believe this is working".
Fox News are freely and knowingly pushing out "remedies" to COVID-19 that are not effective and likely to kill or cause grave illness. In my opinion they are mass murderers that profits handsomely from this, but like the murderous Sackler family, they'll never see the day in court for their crimes.
I've never seen anything like it. Faux's stock answer is to lie. That's it. There isn't even a smidgeon of journalism to it. They believe to give an inch means losing votes, but nonetheless it's very sad.
 
jinjuku

jinjuku

Moderator

Ouch. I figured perhaps $50 even $100, but $200 is going to sting.
Good start. Should go up $50 every month they remain unvaccinated.
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
This morning, I lined up a 3rd dose of the Moderna vaccine for next Tuesday. Finally! It only took 3 messages via their secure patient portal, and 2 phone calls while on hold for 15-20 minutes each time.

This is through my rheumatologist's office. I take 2 medications (methotrexate and Humira) to treat an auto-immune disease. On a 3-point scale of mild-moderate-severe, these leave me with a moderately impaired immune system. People with severely impared immune systems are those who have received an organ transplant (such as a kidney), or those who are or have recently taken strong anti-cancer chemotherapy drugs and/or radiation. Those are only a few examples that come to mind. If you're one of these, contact your doctor right away to see what is recommended about getting a 3rd vaccine dose.

I know there are several others here on AH who are being treated for various auto-immune diseases. Here is the guidance I got from my rheumatologist on getting a 3rd vaccine dose:

https://arapc.com/vaccine-guidance/

And here is the full guidance (8 pages) from the American College of Rheumatology:
 
Last edited:
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Samurai
This morning, I lined up a 3rd dose of the Moderna vaccine for next Tuesday. Finally! It only took 3 messages via their secure patient portal, and 2 phone calls while on hold for 15-20 minutes each time.

This is through my rheumatologist's office. I take 2 medications (methotrexate and Humira) to treat an auto-immune disease. On a 3-point scale of mild-moderate-severe, these leave me with a moderately impaired immune system. People with severely impared immune systems are those who have received an organ transplant (such as a kidney), or those who are or have recently taken strong anti-cancer chemotherapy drugs and/or radiation. Those are only a few examples that come to mind. If you're one of these, contact your doctor right away to see what is recommended about getting a 3rd vaccine dose.

I know there are several others here on AH who are being treated for various auto-immune diseases. Here is the guidance I got from my rheumatologist on getting a 3rd vaccine dose:

https://arapc.com/vaccine-guidance/

And here is the full guidance (8 pages) from the American College of Rheumatology:
I'm not a doctor (and I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night), but I did notice a paper at the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ("PNAS")(that's an acronym to avoid saying in front of sensitive audiences) of the United States of America wesite that may be of interest because it identifies several drugs (NOT methotrexate and Humira) that apparently exacerbated infection. I do not take any of these drugs, but if I was I'd be concerned about possible negative effects (I do not know if any clinical studies have confirmed these effects).

>>>Our screening also identified compounds that exacerbated infection. All mitogen/extracellular signal-regulated kinase (MEK) inhibitors tested (cobimetinib, trametinib, and binimetinib) resulted in a greater than twofold increase of viral infection in Huh7 (Fig. 5 A and B). To confirm this finding, we performed RNAscope on virus-infected, cobimetinib-treated versus untreated cells 24 and 48 h p.i. (Fig. 5C). The percentage of viral RNA-positive cells was increased at 48 h p.i., but not at 24 h p.i., following treatment, suggesting that these compounds could enhance virus spread. In addition, upon treatment with the three MEK inhibitors, and cobimetinib in particular, we observed an increased syncytia size (Fig. 5A) and more diffuse viral RNA and S protein staining pattern within the infected cells (Fig. 5D). These immunofluorescence staining patterns suggest a difference in viral compartmentalization and spread in MEK inhibitor-treated cells. The increased infection and the diffuse localization of viral RNA was recapitulated when treating the cells with a molecular probe, U0126 (10 μM), that is commonly used as an inhibitor of the Ras–Raf–MEK–ERK pathway (Fig. 5E). Mek inhibitors were also evaluated in Caco-2 cells, where the exacerbation effect was observed for trametinib and binimetinib, albeit at a higher concentration of 10 µM (SI Appendix, Fig. S4). Cell counts are shown in SI Appendix, Fig. S3 for drug treatments in Fig. 5 and indicate the lack of cytotoxicity at the tested doses.<<<


It's also interesting (at least to a person like me who has no life) that in teh PNAS paper plain old ordinary lactoferrin (an over the counter supplement) might be effective:

>>The most broadly efficacious hit identified was lactoferrin, a protein found in colostrum and airway epithelium.<<

There are apparently ongoing clinical trials for lactoferrin:

 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
I'm not a doctor (and I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night), but I did notice a paper at the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
I've got a couple of thoughts:

PNAS, a widely known journal, has been around for longer than I have. I used to regularly read it once or twice a month. It was infamous for being the source of some really good papers, and of many junk papers. The problem was that members of the National Academy of Sciences, a distinct honor, got the privilege of being able to submit papers for publication without peer review. Some members were rigorous about getting outside review of what they submitted, and others were not. As a young scientist, I had to read a lot of PNAS papers before I could tell which papers were good and which were junk. In more recent years, PNAS started to require outside peer-review, but the submitting members still got some say over who these reviewers were. Anyway, I can't tell if the paper you linked is interesting or filler.

The investigators looked cultured cells infected in the dish with SARS-CoV-2, testing a whole lot of chemicals as potential inhibitors of infection. This could address inhibitors of viral attachment, entry, replication, and final assembly. The screening method omits any cells from the immune system, and as a result has nothing to say about immune responses.

The investigators limited their screen to drugs that are already approved for use. This has already been done for SARS-CoV-2, and has not produced anything worthwhile.

None of the chemicals that were positive hits in their screen were tested in animal models of SARS-CoV-2 infection. If any of them show good activity in an animal model, then I could get interested.
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Spartan
The problem was that members of the National Academy of Sciences, a distinct honor, got the privilege of being able to submit papers for publication without peer review.
Wow, boggles the mind thinking about such an imbecile and unscientific submission policy.
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Samurai
I'm not sure what to think about this preprint. It seems to be contrary to most of the other information I've seen about natural immunity vs immunity from vaccines. The only thing that is consistent is the conclusion that previous infection followed by vaccination provides additional protection.

Either way, if I was to be infected I'd much rather get infected after being vaccinated than with no vaccine.

>>>Conclusions: This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity. Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.<<<

 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Samurai
It looks like DeSantis is giving the antivax/antimask people what they want. Meat trucks.

>>>ORLANDO, Fla. — An email obtained by WESH 2 News confirms that the Central Florida Division of AdventHealth has reached the capacity of hospital morgues due to the influx of COVID-19 patients.

The email from AdventHealth says the hospital system has begun using rented, refrigerated coolers at 10 campuses in Orange, Osceola, Polk, Seminole and Volusia counties, adding those coolers are also becoming filled.<<<

 
Kvn_Walker

Kvn_Walker

Audioholic Field Marshall
It looks like DeSantis is giving the antivax/antimask people what they want. Meat trucks.

>>>ORLANDO, Fla. — An email obtained by WESH 2 News confirms that the Central Florida Division of AdventHealth has reached the capacity of hospital morgues due to the influx of COVID-19 patients.

The email from AdventHealth says the hospital system has begun using rented, refrigerated coolers at 10 campuses in Orange, Osceola, Polk, Seminole and Volusia counties, adding those coolers are also becoming filled.<<<

Can someone please photoshop DeSatan's face onto this guy?

bob.jpg
 
R

rnatalli

Audioholic Ninja

Bingo. We now know why metal objects stick to people after receiving the full vaccine. Also explains why I am constantly attracted to my audio gear.
 
Kvn_Walker

Kvn_Walker

Audioholic Field Marshall

Bingo. We now know why metal objects stick to people after receiving the full vaccine. Also explains why I am constantly attracted to my audio gear.
TMI, dude! TMI!!!!!
 
cpp

cpp

Audioholic Ninja

Bingo. We now know why metal objects stick to people after receiving the full vaccine. Also explains why I am constantly attracted to my audio gear.
Just like spoons stuck to kids noses. :D
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
Wow, boggles the mind thinking about such an imbecile and unscientific submission policy.
It looks like I have to respond to your comment.

There many scientific journals, but not all are good. The same goes for scientists. There is no requirement that any scientific paper be significant or worthwhile. Most papers, even if the work was done well, don't stand the test of time.

The potential problems of PNAS publications, has been well known among scientists for many years. In fairness, there are many good papers printed in PNAS, and the reputations of most members of the US National Academy of Science are excellent. Some journals have continuing reputations that hold up over the years. I can mention Nature, Science, among others.

However, there are many so-called scientific journals that will publish pretty much anything that's neatly typed. Any grad student in the sciences, has to learn which journals are worth reading and which journals publish less interesting papers, or even junk. In any given field, there is a pecking order of these journals. Every field has one or two journals that are considered as the trusted journal of record by most of the scientists in that field.

That's one reason why changing fields of research is difficult. One has to learn all over again, which journals and which scientists are good, and which are filler, or worse. As a grad student, I learned to regularly read Nature (there is now a whole series of Nature journals), Science, PNAS, The Journal of Biological Chemistry, Biochemistry, and The Journal of Bacteriology. Later in my career, I switched to cancer research, and I had to learn, all over again, which journals to trust. That process was much faster the second time around.

In addition, over the years there has been great proliferation of journals. Some newer ones are excellent, and others are junk. In cancer research, I have seen some so-called journals that publish stolen work without any effort to identify obvious plagiarism. The entire paper was copied word-for-word including all the figures and tables, by some Chinese authors, from a paper published a year and a half earlier! (To be fair, I also know of Chinese authors who regularly publish excellent work.) As a result, a reader always has to develop an eye for what seems good and what seems like junk. This why I am so wary of non-scientists who read scientific literature but jump to wrong conclusions.

This is also why you should be wary of my own words here on AH in regards to Covid-19. I know biological chemistry, molecular biology, cancer basic research, and cancer clinical research. Other the years, I've developed a good working knowledge of immunology, as it applies to cancer. However, I've never cut my teeth on infectious diseases, their treatment or their prevention. I've never tried to hide that. You may have noticed that whenever TLS Guy speaks about clinical aspects of treating Covid-19, I nod to him. This is all part of a good scientific education – you must learn to recognize what you know – what you don't know – and you must never ever fool yourself.

Sorry for the long-winded rant, but you touched a nerve. [//END RANT]
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Spartan
It looks like I have to respond to your comment.

There many scientific journals, but not all are good. The same goes for scientists. There is no requirement that any scientific paper be significant or worthwhile. Most papers, even if the work was done well, don't stand the test of time.

The potential problems of PNAS publications, has been well known among scientists for many years. In fairness, there are many good papers printed in PNAS, and the reputations of most members of the US National Academy of Science are excellent. Some journals have continuing reputations that hold up over the years. I can mention Nature, Science, among others.

However, there are many so-called scientific journals that will publish pretty much anything that's neatly typed. Any grad student in the sciences, has to learn which journals are worth reading and which journals publish less interesting papers, or even junk. In any given field, there is a pecking order of these journals. Every field has one or two journals that are considered as the trusted journal of record by most of the scientists in that field.

That's one reason why changing fields of research is difficult. One has to learn all over again, which journals and which scientists are good, and which are filler, or worse. As a grad student, I learned to regularly read Nature (there is now a whole series of Nature journals), Science, PNAS, The Journal of Biological Chemistry, Biochemistry, and The Journal of Bacteriology. Later in my career, I switched to cancer research, and I had to learn, all over again, which journals to trust. That process was much faster the second time around.

In addition, over the years there has been great proliferation of journals. Some newer ones are excellent, and others are junk. In cancer research, I have seen some so-called journals that publish stolen work without any effort to identify obvious plagiarism. The entire paper was copied word-for-word including all the figures and tables, by some Chinese authors, from a paper published a year and a half earlier! (To be fair, I also know of Chinese authors who regularly publish excellent work.) As a result, a reader always has to develop an eye for what seems good and what seems like junk. This why I am so wary of non-scientists who read scientific literature but jump to wrong conclusions.

This is also why you should be wary of my own words here on AH in regards to Covid-19. I know biological chemistry, molecular biology, cancer basic research, and cancer clinical research. Other the years, I've developed a good working knowledge of immunology, as it applies to cancer. However, I've never cut my teeth on infectious diseases, their treatment or their prevention. I've never tried to hide that. You may have noticed that whenever TLS Guy speaks about clinical aspects of treating Covid-19, I nod to him. This is all part of a good scientific education – you must learn to recognize what you know – what you don't know – and you must never ever fool yourself.

Sorry for the long-winded rant, but you touched a nerve. [//END RANT]
My education is in mathematics, though like many I work in software development and have done so for a long time. It irritates me that so many researches does not understand that mathematics (for other readers: so is statistics) is just a tool and nothing more, and misapplies it and call it "science".

My wife is a researcher in the areas you know, except for cancer research, (a little vague on purpose) so I do hear things from her and others.

So, to end my own little rant, peer review is far from perfect but for sure is better than none if well implemented. One could hope that more scientists will publish their data along with their article, but not that many does so, and only in a few fields does so as far as I know. With external financing of research at public universities that is so very prominent at least in Sweden, along with a focus on publishable results, patents and NDA, we are where we are, I guess.
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
I'm not sure what to think about this preprint. It seems to be contrary to most of the other information I've seen about natural immunity vs immunity from vaccines. The only thing that is consistent is the conclusion that previous infection followed by vaccination provides additional protection.
Good instincts. I also am a bit wary about their conclusions.

This paper looks like what I call a "data dump". The authors had access to a large data base of clinical records from Covid-19 patients. They scoured the data to see what they could learn about immunity from previous infection(s), vaccination, or both. The number of cases and people whose data they considered is very large. So the statistical analysis, alone, might be alright. I'd like to see what statisticians would say about this paper.

However, the big problem with looking at historical clinical data is that it includes all kinds of people with all kinds of medical risk factors. It's what the FDA would call a retrospective study, it looks back on existing historical data. For clinical trials, the FDA requires that a large study be done prospectively. All the patient characteristics must be carefully selected in advance of the study itself. Similarly, the FDA requires that a clinical endpoint be carefully defined in advance. Will the study look at some aspect of Covid-19 disease, such as hospitalization, mechanical ventillation, death, or will it look at measured antibody levels in patient blood samples? Whatever the endpoint will be, it has to be done consistently for all patients in the study. In retrospective studies this might be ignored or done inconsistently.

The FDA statisticians insist that the people being studied must be from a narrowly defined group or groups with identified medical risk factors, and that all people are evaluated for the same endpoints, as much as is possible. As a result, this paper can suggest that infection followed by vaccination might provide better protection, but it cannot conclude this with any confidence.
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top