Bronco Forum - Full Size Ford Bronco Forum banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
638 Posts
Discussion Starter #1

The Fauci’s of the world might not want to discuss that herd immunity to this virus has been developing since the fall. Fauci as an expert in infectious disease for decades now is a bright researcher. However experts should be able to predict what’s coming down the pike and he blew this one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
279 Posts

The Fauci’s of the world might not want to discuss that herd immunity to this virus has been developing since the fall. Fauci as an expert in infectious disease for decades now is a bright researcher. However experts should be able to predict what’s coming down the pike and he blew this one.
So if there is any reality to this myth, then something else is causing all of the hospital ER admissions in NY, LA, FL, WI. Herd immunity requires 70% had the virus. That would be 28 million cases, with zero hospitalization, and zero fatality. I do not think it is the water, or sunshine protecting them, so it must not be COVID-19 causing all of the problems in the rest of the country. Maybe we should find out what it is?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
638 Posts
Discussion Starter #4 (Edited)
Dribs, did you take time to read the link? You obviously didn’t because the article is specific to California. Serology testing will help determine what percentage of the population was exposed to the bug. Do you understand anything about IgM and IgG antibodies? Early in an infection IgM elevate first followed by IgG. It takes longer for the IgG to become abnormal range on a test. Once the active phase of the infection passes the IgM antibodies normalize and IgG stay elevated for life helping to confer immunity. It is the IgG antibodies that protect us from recurring disease. If someone just has IgG antibodies, it indicates the exposure they had is old possibly as old as six months prior but at least a couple. So if someone tested now, today, for just IgG antibodies and not abnormal for IgM it can indicate their infection was as far back as October especially if their medical history is congruent. There are reports of an early atypical flu like illness hitting Cali in October. But we are not sure because serology testing is just getting started. We won’t know until the Stanford Serology study data is complied.


Serology testing is different than testing for the actual virus. What would that tell you junior?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
638 Posts
Discussion Starter #5 (Edited)
I could not find the referenced article at SFgate.com, but did find this Think you got the coronavirus last winter? Stanford doctors say it's unlikely , which disputes that anyone had it before January. But, the Wuhan is not the only "corona virus" out there, maybe having a less severe Corona-type would give you the antibodies to protect you from the Wuhan.

SF Gate removed a couple articles about possible natural immunity from their site. Go figure?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
638 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
KSBW 8
4/7/2020

MONTEREY, Calif. —
Researchers at Stanford Medicine are working to find out what proportion of Californians have already had COVID-19. The new study could help policymakers make more informed decisions during the coronavirus pandemic.
The team tested 3,200 people at three Bay Area locations on Saturday using an antibody test for COVID-19 and expect to release results in the coming weeks. The data could help to prove another theory, one that believes COVID-19 arrived undetected in California much earlier than previously thought.

Advertisement
According to Victor Davis Hanson, a senior fellow with Stanford's Hoover Institute, the hypothesis that COVID-19 first started spreading in California in the fall of 2019 is one explanation for the state's lower than expected case numbers.
Hanson is not affiliated with the study.
As of Tuesday, the state had 374 reported COVID-19 fatalities in a state of 40 million people, compared to New York which has seen 14 times as many fatalities and has a population half that of California. Social distancing could be playing a role but New York's stay-at-home order went into effect on March 22, three days after California implemented its order.
"Something is going on that we haven't quite found out yet," said Hanson.
Hanson said he thinks it is possible COVID-19 has been spreading among Californians since the fall when doctors reported an early flu season in the state. During that same time, travel between China and America was unfettered. Some of those visitors even arriving on direct flights from Wuhan, the epicenter of the coronavirus outbreak in China.
"When you add it all up it would be naïve to think that California did not have some exposure," said Hanson.
Hanson said through all of this the Chinese government has been disingenuous about the timing of the initial outbreak of COVID-19.
"They originally said it was in early January, then it got backdated to December and then early December and now they are saying as early as November 17," said Hanson.
If Californians were exposed earlier than the rest of the country to COVID-19 the state may have had a chance to build up some herd immunity to the disease. We won't know if that is the case until results from the Stanford Medicine study come back.
Herd immunity in the idea that a large percentage of a population has already contracted the virus which would slow the rate at which it spread to others.
On Friday and Saturday, the study's co-lead Eran Bendavid coordinated testing at sites in San Jose, Los Gatos and Mountain View. The teams used an antibody test from the company Premier Biotech. Technicians use a finger prick to draw blood for the test and it can tell within minutes if a person developed antibodies to COVID-19.
The same brand test is being offered at a lab in Monterey and healthcare workers there are closely watching the study. Spenser Smith with ARCpoint Labs is aware of the theory that COVID-19 arrived here as early as the fall and that some people may have had the virus unknowingly.
"Knowing the levels as to which that happened would be great and one of the tools you can use is this test," said Smith
ARCpoint Labs started offering the antibody test in Monterey last week and has since tested 500 people. Smith said ARC has had some positive results for COVID-19 and is reporting all results to Monterey County's Public Health Department.
Hanson said the testing could help us as we start the recovery process. He does not advocate lifting social distancing rules right now but said testing could help get some people back to work.
"It is going to allow us to get back to normal much more quickly because there will be many more people than we think that have anti-bodies," he said.
Positive results in recovered folks could get nurses and caregivers back on the front lines of the pandemic as well as dishwashers and small business owners who keep our economy going.
The results of the study could also help us all to feel less scared of COVID-19. Limited testing has resulted in an artificially high death rate. The more people we can test who have mild symptoms, who are asymptomatic or who have recovered the less-lethal COVID-19 will seem.
 

·
Premium Member
1987 Bronco 351W, C6
Joined
·
1,213 Posts
Yeah, I hope it's true and the antibody test yields good results, but I couldn't find anything on it using the reference Rush used. VDH is a very smart man, so it is hard to doubt him, but reliable antibody testing is difficult and there are minute protein changes between different strains of a virus type. This is why they have to make a new Flu vaccine every year and sometimes it doesn't work. Like I said, the Wuhan is not the only Coronavirus, and I hate the way that term is thrown about.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
638 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Yeah, I hope it's true and the antibody test yields good results, but I couldn't find anything on it using the reference Rush used. VDH is a very smart man, so it is hard to doubt him, but reliable antibody testing is difficult and there are minute protein changes between different strains of a virus type. This is why they have to make a new Flu vaccine every year and sometimes it doesn't work. Like I said, the Wuhan is not the only Coronavirus, and I hate the way that term is thrown about.
Yes I understand what you’re saying, but it appears Stanford scientists have validated the test.
‘Since beginning work on the test on March 22, the Stanford team has focused on ensuring they can manufacture large quantities of the reagents needed, especially the receptor binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, and validating the test. They have validated the test using samples from patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 on tests that detect viral genetic material, as well as plasma samples known to be negative because they were collected more than two years ago.
Stanford experts are now determining who will receive the serology test, with health care workers and others in the hospital setting being prioritized. The team also wants to expand testing capacity.’


 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
638 Posts
Discussion Starter #9 (Edited)
Update on serology testing: I spoke today with a worldwide well known immunologist who owns a lab in LA which I use for serology testing for different cases. He gave me a heads up on serology testing being run on a small sample of patients in California which he will be presenting at a conference this week. The testing is indicating almost no herd immunity in this initial small sample which he said may indicate states that spend $ on this are wasting time and dollars. We’ll see what Stanford figures out. This gentleman is a highly regarded research and clinical immunologist. I’ll be listening in on a 2 hour webinar he is participating in tomorrow. More to come.
 

·
Registered
82 XLT Lariat 351w, Edelbrock 1406 4bbl ,C6 auto, auto locking hubs ,33x10.5x15
Joined
·
2,582 Posts
Not surprised since u can be reinfected... And they say the second time around is worse then the first.
 

·
Registered
82 XLT Lariat 351w, Edelbrock 1406 4bbl ,C6 auto, auto locking hubs ,33x10.5x15
Joined
·
2,582 Posts
Data can be skewed... Look what they've done to it so far... But yes, only time will tell...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
638 Posts
Discussion Starter #13 (Edited)
Stanford serology data. Many more exposed than thought thanks to serology testing versus PCR testing alone. The important take away from this data is the fatality rate in Santa Clara is much less than experts like the fraud Fauci have suggested when you add in the serology data. This could translate to the rest of the country but time will tell and more than likely the fatality rate will be lower Than the ‘experts’ like Fauci suggest. This suggests that the virus has known us longer than we’ve known it. Any politician who parrots we cannot get back to normal until the virus is wiped out is a fraud also.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
279 Posts
Dribs, did you take time to read the link? You obviously didn’t because the article is specific to California. Serology testing will help determine what percentage of the population was exposed to the bug. Do you understand anything about IgM and IgG antibodies? Early in an infection IgM elevate first followed by IgG. It takes longer for the IgG to become abnormal range on a test. Once the active phase of the infection passes the IgM antibodies normalize and IgG stay elevated for life helping to confer immunity. It is the IgG antibodies that protect us from recurring disease. If someone just has IgG antibodies, it indicates the exposure they had is old possibly as old as six months prior but at least a couple. So if someone tested now, today, for just IgG antibodies and not abnormal for IgM it can indicate their infection was as far back as October especially if their medical history is congruent. There are reports of an early atypical flu like illness hitting Cali in October. But we are not sure because serology testing is just getting started. We won’t know until the Stanford Serology study data is complied.


Serology testing is different than testing for the actual virus. What would that tell you junior?
I have heard enough about the study. Never heard of IgM and IgG antibodies. But I did spend the night at a Holiday Inn. And understand statistics. In light of the statistics, what is killing people in New York is something different, or there is something in the water in California that is protecting the population. If there is even the slightest possibility that the virus was present in massive numbers in California, the CDC needs to discover what is killing people in the other states, because it is not the same.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
638 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Interpretation of Stanford results for those other than Dribbles who is so afraid of life if I dropped him off deep in the Everglades swamp with my buddy’s airboat he’d be gator h’orderves within an hour.

from Rush Limbaugh:
I predicted this. Folks, I was minding my own business on Friday, and I got a flag email from my friend Victor Davis Hanson, and it was a preliminary report on Stanford University’s research in Santa Clara County. It is bombshell. It was the prepublication. The file that he sent me was actually the preprint version, which is pre-peer review.
But here is the take-away paragraph from the research. It suggests that one county’s cases, Santa Clara, California — which, by the way, is where the 49ers are. For those of you who know geography by your sports teams, Santa Clara is where the 49ers stadium is, 49er training complex. They’re not in San Francisco anymore. “One county’s cases could be more than double the entire state’s reported cases by testing.
“Even a 1% to 4% existing positives to the virus in a population, completely overturn the case-to-fatality rates. In this case, the figures work out to a mortality rate of 0.1%, not 1%, not 2%, not 4%, not 5% — 0.1% at the high, and the low end, 0.02%.” That would be like a normal or bad flu year. One to two per thousand dying in the population. Remember, when we started, the models here that everybody swore by which gave us the lockdown policy were predicting four to one dying per hundred — per hundred, not thousand.
So here is the paragraph from the Stanford study. “These prevalence estimates represent a range between 48,000 and 81,000 people infected in Santa Clara County by early April, which is 50 to 85 times more than the number of confirmed cases. The population prevalence of COVID-19 antibodies in Santa Clara County implies that the infectious is much more widespread than indicated by the number of confirmed cases.
“Population prevalence estimates can now be used to calibrate epidemic and mortality…” The bottom line is here is they found — their research, Stanford University, found — the number of cases, number of people who had infectious, the vast majority never knew it or they are asymptomatic or they suffered, didn’t go to the hospital, 50 to 85 times the reported cases. If this is true, it means the death rate is way down, that the mortality rate for COVID-19 is so low that it may even be lower than the flu every year.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
279 Posts
Interpretation of Stanford results for those other than Dribbles who is so afraid of life if I dropped him off deep in the Everglades swamp with my buddy’s airboat he’d be gator h’orderves within an hour.

from Rush Limbaugh:
I predicted this. Folks, I was minding my own business on Friday, and I got a flag email from my friend Victor Davis Hanson, and it was a preliminary report on Stanford University’s research in Santa Clara County. It is bombshell. It was the prepublication. The file that he sent me was actually the preprint version, which is pre-peer review.
But here is the take-away paragraph from the research. It suggests that one county’s cases, Santa Clara, California — which, by the way, is where the 49ers are. For those of you who know geography by your sports teams, Santa Clara is where the 49ers stadium is, 49er training complex. They’re not in San Francisco anymore. “One county’s cases could be more than double the entire state’s reported cases by testing.
“Even a 1% to 4% existing positives to the virus in a population, completely overturn the case-to-fatality rates. In this case, the figures work out to a mortality rate of 0.1%, not 1%, not 2%, not 4%, not 5% — 0.1% at the high, and the low end, 0.02%.” That would be like a normal or bad flu year. One to two per thousand dying in the population. Remember, when we started, the models here that everybody swore by which gave us the lockdown policy were predicting four to one dying per hundred — per hundred, not thousand.
So here is the paragraph from the Stanford study. “These prevalence estimates represent a range between 48,000 and 81,000 people infected in Santa Clara County by early April, which is 50 to 85 times more than the number of confirmed cases. The population prevalence of COVID-19 antibodies in Santa Clara County implies that the infectious is much more widespread than indicated by the number of confirmed cases.
“Population prevalence estimates can now be used to calibrate epidemic and mortality…” The bottom line is here is they found — their research, Stanford University, found — the number of cases, number of people who had infectious, the vast majority never knew it or they are asymptomatic or they suffered, didn’t go to the hospital, 50 to 85 times the reported cases. If this is true, it means the death rate is way down, that the mortality rate for COVID-19 is so low that it may even be lower than the flu every year.
Rush Limbaugh interpreting a scientific research paper?

“The coronavirus is the common cold, folks.”

COVID-19 got its name because there were 18 previous strains. The virus was identified in late 2019, hence the name.

“No matter how many people die from coronavirus, it’s not going to equate to the damage done to the U.S. economy”
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
638 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
The Stanford and USC covid antibody studies are indicating the fatality rate from covid to be .12 to .2 percent. For the record the influenza death rate is about .1 percent. Ongoing studies will agree within a certain degree of medical probability. Would policy officials had risked 26 million jobs over Influenza? No. You should be more concerned over the democratic party’s and supporters obsession with killing the unborn and born than you are with Covid which will kill far less. Carry on.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top