'No surprise' we're seeing coronavirus surge in Republican areas

No argument that plagues have no upside. Everyone would like to see effective treatment or a vaccine sooner than later.

The moral question will be whether the economic damage caused by the restriction of movement for healthy people, cutting off financial livelihoods and postponing healthcare for other diseases was a good decision in hindsight, if millions of people die in poverty and from other illnesses resulting from those global lockdown strategies which have been implemented this past year.

 

You might want to check your math.

 

~ It could be red states are more relaxed and settled in their lives - could be more healthy in general. Peaceful instead of paranoid. Less stress ...

~ I suspect the ones who will die out are paranoid hypochondriacs obsessed with catching the virus , masks and global temperature catastrophe. The rest will live on to tend the graves and reminisce .

 

I would be very interested in reading any links you can provide indicating that complications from the flu are at most 1% and any you can provide that 10-20% of Covd patients suffer lasting complications. Thanks in advance.

In the meantime, here is an article from our National Institutes of Health which discusses the variety of complications to the heart and other organs which are associated with influenza.




https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5596521/

 

~ From what I read and hear the case is already made that more damage to society as a whole results from lockdown.

Take this guy for instance. ..

 

The surge in cases is by way of manipulating the data shown by notoriously inaccurate PCR tests. The manipulators in CDC and MSM are like magicians pulling rabbits out of a hat. Only the gullible believe garbage data.

 

~ The number of "cases" are emphasized - but the number of deaths / hospitalizations is always missing. Funny how that is ...

{ Note Trump's rapid recovery is ignored by media }

 

From your link: "Political rallies without physical distancing and the reopening of businesses are helping drive an increase in COVID-19 cases."

A less politically charged biased statement would be, "Rallies without masks and reopening of businesses without masks are helping to drive an increase in COVID-19 cases."

There are other rallies, that aren't political, like Biketoberfest, but the biased point was made, the problem is that resourced Biden/terrorists wear masks like criminals are wont to do anyway:

https://democrats.org/black-lives-matter-organizing-resources/

https://www.rideapart.com/articles/449430/daytona-beach-biketoberfest-2020-coronavirus-concerns/

 

Well, you can restore the content by temporarily removing the poster (Derideo Te) from your Ignore list, to look it up. It frontally contradicts your post #3. So this is not settled, dear.

 

Your first phrase: Just because the therapeutics have improved. We've learned to treat this virus much better, with early anticoagulation, early steroids, several boosters to inhibit replication, and avoidance of invasive ventilation. People are dying in ICUs like a third as numerous as before, thanks to our hard work (I'm a healthcare professional), not thanks to the imprudent people who minimize the virus and don't engage in containment/protective measures.

Your second phrase: do you have any evidence of that?

 

Much less often. You seem to be repeatedly missing this point.

 

Yes, sure. They should be more specific. I'm not happy with the CDC, currently.

 

Please, tell me where my math is wrong. Do yours, let's compare.

 

again, very rare.

 

Common complications from the flu are bacterial pneumonia and sinus infection. Myocarditis and multi-organ failure are very rare for the seasonal flu, outside of the major H1N1 pandemics (Swine Flu, Spanish Flu). This paper puts it at as low as 0.4% outside of the huge H1N1 pandemics of the past (when, yes, the flu can be as bad as Covid-19, but I'm talking the run-of-the-mill seasonal flu).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3533457/#:~:text=The frequency of myocardial involvement in influenza infection varies (0,13, 15–23].

Now, please compare with this one: a whooping 78% with Covid-19.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2768916

Anyway, I apologize for my arrogant tone of yesterday. I was frustrated and in a bad mood, and I wasn't as civil with you as you deserve. While we profoundly disagree, you've always been a civil poster, so, my bad, and please accept my apologies.

 

No problem. We all have bad days. I prefer people to say what they really think at any given moment anyway, good mood or bad.

I see 0-10% in the flu article, and it looks like they were studying average age patients at 30 years old.

The second article is inconclusive with the words, "the overall impact remains unknown". Myocardial inflammation which happens in Covid and the flu can be temporary or chronic. (Median patient age = 50 years.)

One other study on myocardial inflammation is also inconclusive. They also mention inflammation but aren't sure that it's directly related to Covid or just that general systemic inflammation is associated with many viruses. It's obviously more deadly in the very old and people with immune issues. We can hope it's a temporary condition in younger people.

https://heart.bmj.com/content/106/15/1127

 

0-10% because the high numbers come from the studies of the exceptional H1N1 pandemics, like I said. The regular, run-of-the-mill seasonal flu? Nah...
Yes, like I've said, the huge H1N1 pandemics are more similar to the SARS-CoV-2, but that's usually not what we think of, when we talk about "the flu."
Now, for the German study. Median age, 49. Standard deviation, 14. This means that just one SD down, you're looking at patients aged 35.
Sure, all restrained, well-written, non-alarmistic studies will show "impact unknown" before the issue is better studied. That's common language for a preliminary, pilot study. It needs to be replicated, with a larger sample (this one, only 100 subjects). It hasn't been, yet.

Anyway, I think it's pretty scary. But I don't buy the 78% incidence. Maybe they had some sort of biased sample, since it's not an RCT. That's why I *didn't* say 78% of heart damage in survivors (although this is what this study suggests), but I merely said at least 10%, maybe up to 20%.

Look, this study is so spooky, that SEVERAL major Cardiology associations and SEVERAL prominent cardiologists expressed DEEP concern after it was published. One of them (at this moment I don't recall which one, although I did quote him by name and affiliation in a previous post of mine) said that maybe we'll see the end of the infectious, acute phase of this pandemic, and a decade or so down the road we'll see another "pandemic of heart failure", in his very words.

This is all so spooky, that the author of the second study in the same issue of the JAMA-Cardiology, the one about autopsies, said that when he looked at the electronic microscopy of the heart fibers decimated by the SARS-CoV-2, he couldn't sleep for several nights. He said so in an interview. I posted the link here, somewhere in my posting history.

You asked for substantiation of the 10% to 20% number. It's not as easy to provide. It comes more from the experience of colleagues who are more and more in tune with the sequelae, than from published studies. I've talked to many who said "I was very concerned when I read the JAMA-Cardiology study out of Frankfurt, and yes, I've been seeing heart damage, but maybe not 78% like they say but rather 1 in 10 or 1 in 5 patients." I'm not a cardiologist, myself. I treat the acute phase. What happens next escapes my scope of practice. But yes, I've talked to many colleagues who are deeply concerned.

Now, you still lump it all together. "Myocardial inflammation which happens in Covid and the flu" etc. Sure, it can be temporary. But sure, it can also result in permanent damage. And what I've been telling you OVER AND OVER is that it is MUCH less frequent for the flu than for Covid-19.

Look, you won't find a doctor worth his/her weight in salt and who knows what he/she is saying, who doesn't know that the SARS-CoV-2 is VASTLY more dangerous than the regular seasonal influenza virus. I can hardly comprehend why you want so badly to make it so, against all evidence. What are you trying to accomplish?

Is this just political for you? Because for me, it's mostly medical.

Mostly, because the bulk of the reason why I haven't voted for Trump, is his minimizing of the seriousness of this disease. My job is to save lives. It's made more difficult by his minimizing of it.

I understand you're a committed conservative, and you desperately want this to be exaggerated and groundless, so that it doesn't hurt the re-election chances of your beloved president. Sorry, but you should walk away from the political side. This is a matter of public health for ALL Americans. This is not a Democrat-Republican matter.

We were unfortunate in the fact that this virus hit us in the middle of a bitter political divisiveness, and an election year. But it's the same in all other 214 countries, and over there they don't have a Trump v. Biden election.

Please, stop trying to bend reality and find some sort of reason to call this virus, something just like the flu. It just isn't. It is very dangerous. Be very careful. Avoid it at all costs. The vaccines are coming. We should be fine by next summer. But don't let down your guard, and don't think of this as just something similar to the flu. It isn't.

 

Huh, what?
Deaths and hospitalizations are in the news all the time. How come you haven't seen them? Wordometers and Johns Hopkins track deaths, and a huge number of newspapers, local, regional, and national, comment of the status of number of hospitalizations and deaths for several states. Where have you been???

Was Trump's rapid recovery ignored by media??? I've seen dozens of articles on his treatment, what he got, what these experimental treatments are, the timeline of his recovery, how he did, the works. Again, where have you been?

Look, the president has a team of 20 doctors, was tested almost daily, as soon as his symptoms started, he was given Regeneron's polyclonal antibody cocktail, he was promptly started on remdesivir (although now remdesivir is 2-1, with two favorable studies, and one, major one, just published, finding no efficacy), dexamethasone, and he was already on vitamin D, Zinc, and melatonin.

Why did he recover so fast?

Simple: very good treatment.

Is it what most Americans get or have access to?

Nope.

 

@CenterField, I think the frustration with the flu comparisons for many comes from the downplaying of the seriousness of influenza. It bothers (understandably) you that people downplay C19, but it’s frustrating for others to see influenza downplayed to make C19 look “worse” in relation.

I first mentioned cardiovascular event deaths initiated by influenza infections on PF back in late July. I find this to be compelling. As of today, I can not find any solid evidence to the contrary of the estimation that 90,000 cardiovascular event influenza triggered deaths per year is likely.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC387426/

In fact, much more recent research is very supportive. On the myocardial side of the equation as well as the stroke/arterial tearing side.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1702090?query=featured_home

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/01/190130075757.htm

Based on dates of the research in my first link, I believe that study probably had something to do with the CDC updating the way they estimate and report influenza deaths back in 2010. It was a definite improvement. Based on recent research supporting my first link, I believe the CDC is still severely undercounting influenza deaths linked directly or indirectly to cardiovascular events.

Something that really makes me wonder how much damage to hearts we may be missing from influenza is silent heart attack (SMI in your world). If I’m not misremembering, nearly half of all heart attacks are “silent” and undiagnosed at the time of their occurrence. Based on the above links it isn’t illogical to assume non-hospitalized and non-confirmed influenza cases are triggering silent heart attacks that are not reported either until routine screening finds scarring or another cardiovascular event prompts testing or causes death.

As always, I’m open to research that provides solid evidence I’m wrong.

 

Except for the relentless criticism of Eric Trump on the issue I’d let this one slide. But Trump’s Regeneron treatment was in fact a combination (cocktail) of two monoclonal antibodies, not polyclonal antibodies.

 

~ Yes indeed. Very curious { suspicious? } that accurate numbers on seasonal influenza deaths has yet to be found.
Something is going on behind the scene ...

 

All we need to do is adapt. Adaptation is built into our DNA, literally, and thus everything we've created has that foundational essence within it. We can shift away from the standard of assembling large groups of humans together for every purpose. Society can do it, our industries can do it, our economy can do it.

Society - We must rid ourselves of our selfish desires to gratify the flesh at all times. Hey, I'm sorry you cant have that standing room only party anymore. Oh, so sorry but we cant pack 100,000 people into an indoor venue anymore. And, gee, sorry again but its just not a good idea to cram as many people as we can onto a few hundred yards of beach anymore.

Industry - We've got a data infrastructure to facilitate every communication need we could ever hope for. We've got huge masters of the supply chain retailers that can put every product we want on our doorstep. And the small businesses that everyone is worried will go extinct, well there's nothing stopping them from adapting too. An entirely new service industry has popped up dedicated to providing tools and strategies to just about every small business under the sun with aims to keep them in the game. All businesses must change, many will likely narrow their focus, and yes there are some that will have to be totally sacrificed but the honest reality is these types of losses wont be essential to the population at large.

Economy - We're simply going to have to give some of the wealth redistribution concepts a try. I don't like it, I know its more likely than not that all we'll do is create an uber rich 1%er government elite class, but ya know when we set aside all the political fighting there really is no moral way to justify a culture that sustains an economy which provides both the greatest potential for gain and the greatest protection from loss to those who are in such amazing financial state that they have zero need for either.

 

Interesting, but if this is the case, then we're screwed, because Covid-19 being much worse, then we're likely to see huge spikes in SMI among the people who recovered from Covid-19 (already, we see a spike in strokes). Cardiologists are very worried. In a post buried somewhere in my posting history I posted some 10 leading cardiologists issuing concerned statements, after the two JAMA-Cardiology articles surfaced, and talking about a possible future "pandemic" of heart problems.

About the incidence of cardiac events associated with the flu, I did post an article saying it is very variable, going from zero, and 0.4%, to up to 10%, the latter having applied only during the bad pandemic of severe H1N1, not the usual seasonal flu. But anyway, if we've been missing more than that, then like I said, we're likely to see even more in wake of the Covid-19 pandemic. Even if we take the 10%, which would be more in line with your 90,000, it's nowhere close to the 78% found in the German study for Covid-19. Regardless of what can be found about the flu, there is no doubt that Covid-19 is much worse. None.

Again, the flu shot, even when it doesn't avoid infection, does dampen the severity of the disease. We may get this down when we have a good (or more than one) Covid-19 vaccine.

 

The CDC has always ESTIMATED the total deaths by Influenza. If they were to only report the tested ones, the number would be some ten times smaller. I suspect that the CDC has always tried to be dramatic about influenza, to get people to accept more the flu shot (only some 43% to 46% of adults accept it, yearly). So, mortality comparisons with the flu are apples and oranges because the vast majority of reported deaths by Covid-19 are tested. Yes the CDC does recommend and accept presumed cases based on clinical course when they are untested due to testing shortages, but these are a minority among the 215K+ that have been reported, unlike what happens with the flu, for which the vast majority of estimated deaths are not tested.

 

You are correct. I looked it up and REGN-COV2 cocktail is a combination of two monoclonal antibodies (REGN10933 and REGN10987). As usual, another scientific point got misreported by sources, given that I recall clearly that it's been mentioned as polyclonal.

https://investor.regeneron.com/news...v2-antibody-cocktail-reduced-viral-levels-and

About the differences:

POLYCLONAL ANTIBODIES: ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
The advantages and disadvantages of polyclonal antibodies were mainly determined by their multi-epitope specificity. The key advantages and disadvantages are listed below:

Advantages:

• Inexpensive and relatively quick to produce (+/- 3 months).
• Higher overall antibody affinity against the antigen due to the recognition of multiple epitopes.
• Have a high sensitivity for detecting low-quantity proteins.
• High ability to capture the target protein (recommended as the capture antibody in a sandwich ELISA).
• Antibody affinity results in quicker binding to the target antigen (recommended for assays that require quick capture of the protein; e.g., IP or ChIP).
• Superior for use in detecting a native protein.
• Easy to couple with antibody labels and rather unlikely to affect binding capability.

Disadvantages:

• Batch-to-batch variability as produced in different animals at different times.
• High chance of cross-reactivity due to a recognition of multiple epitopes (affinity purified antibodies display a minimum cross-reactivity).

MONOCLONAL ANTIBODIES: ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES

Advantages:

• Batch-to-batch reproducibility (high homogeneity).
• Possibility to produce large quantities of identical antibody (an advantage for diagnostic manufacturing and therapeutic drug development).
• High specificity to a single epitope reflected in low cross-reactivity.
• More sensitive in assays requiring quantification of the protein levels.
• Low background noise.

Disadvantages:

• More expensive to produce. It is necessary to produce a pool of several monoclonal antibodies.
• Requires significantly more time to produce and develop the hybridized clone (+/- 6 months).
• More susceptible to binding changes when labeled.

FINAL REMARKS
Polyclonal antibodies are made using several different immune cells. They will have the affinity for the same antigen but different epitopes, while monoclonal antibodies are made using identical immune cells that are all clones of a specific parent cell

The above is from:

https://www.labclinics.com/en/polyc...mAbs) are generated,from a single parent cell.