First of all, I’m going to label this a WHO-fact. Is this WHO-fact as solid as “masks don’t work?” Or “no evidence of person-to-person transmission?” Or “we should thank China for all their transparency?”
It really reminds me of the New York Times, and “WMD in Iraq.”
Secondly, I am going to speculate that immunity may not be one of those binary things. Like with the other ILIs, having partial immunity from a prior version helps your system defend itself from a new exposure.
Since this is “novel” - no partial immunity from a prior exposure. Second time around, who knows, might be an easier journey.
Any corona virus experts here that can help us out as to how the other corona virus examples generally act?
Might there be some of that ‘rigid ideology’ in your thinking on the who dunnit side of this?
Jan
Very strange - Twitter alters the feed for the above link.
To see what I am trying to show click on the original tweet and scroll down.
https://twitter.com/raoult_didier
The idea I am trying to convey is that Dr Raoult is like a Robin Hood for many - people are giving all sorts of information which Deep State (OK it is not necessarily a recognised organisation) does not want to hear.
On your chart Chris - why can’t we put something on the x axis like Light (on the left and Darkness) on the right.
Being ridgid often gets mixed up with discipline.
westcoastjan wrote
Might there be some of that ‘rigid ideology’ in your thinking on the who dunnit side of this?It looks like you are hinting at something. I'll need more information to understand you though. Please continue.
Agreed. The wording in the conclusion is misleading. Saying ‘there is no evidence’ or even ‘there is no evidence yet’ that antibodies confer immunity to re-infection of SC2 implies that this has been studied and no evidence was found. In fact, there is no ‘conclusion’ - there is only an ‘observation’ that this has not been studied.
But the question is a valid one: ‘Do SC2 antibodies confer immunity to re-infection?’ Many people are making the assumption that this is the case, and policy decisions are being made, or will be made, based on this assumption.
We also need to know:
- if yes, for how long? Permanently? One week? One season?
- Do antibodies confer immunity for all strains / mutations of SC2 or only the strain that the individual originally contracted, or for a subset of the known strains / mutations?
One reason these questions are important is that this virus is not like anything we have known before, there seems to be a debate as to its’ origin, whether it does have ancestry in the natural world, and if so, whether it has been subject to manipulation in a lab.
Hopefully those of us who contract the disease will have future immunity, but this needs to be studied before we can say there is ‘evidence’ or ‘no evidence’.
See the third link, the compilation of HCQ studied, below, I just sent it to several people, as I had also wanted a link. Dr. Bruce Thorne, reply to #6 (I think, I can’t easily scroll down to check).
I was looking for ADE in the second wave of the Spanish flu when I stumbled on a Wikipedia page (with sources) about antibody dependent enhancement. Some nasty tests with rabbits did show the ADE effect for SARS. Maybe, just maybe, you do not want to have antibodies…(source).
PP member Jane Doe apparently has a blog entitled, “Millennial Mind” (link).
Launched last September 2019, she’s produced some very thoughtful and well-researched articles worth the read, IMO.
Kudo’s to you Jane for your initiative and journalistic activism! 
Hi,
You might want to check out:
https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus
at https://ourworldindata.org
For a pretty comprehensive catalog of charts using frequently updated data.
All the best,
Ted
Mots:
In defense of personality typing, we should perhaps beware of assuming that all “F” types are emotionally driven at all times. When I studied the Myers-Briggs typology, it seemed clear that the “F” type was as capable of rational thought and discussion, as “T” types were of having guiding values. But if pushed to the wall for a decision, “F” would place values higher than logic in the pro-con list. Similarly the “T” type, while finding values important, would place logic ahead. As one who consistently tests out right on the line between the two (usually slightly more to the “F” side), I figure logic is like lumber - you need it to build a house - but it doesn’t define the design or utility of the house. You need both logic and values to get it right, so you need both “types” to cooperate - indeed one of the values of the Myers-Briggs system is to recognize one’s weaker functions and learn to strengthen those sides, to attain greater balance within yourself.
My observation is that emotionalism - i.e. believing that what your emotions are telling you is true about any situation - is a trap either side can fall into when feeling threatened (or euphoric). But the only thing emotions can truly tell you, is how you are feeling. It’s necessary to address this, because feeling negative or destructive emotions, or blindingly euphoric ones, can lead to bad decisions and actions. But emotionalism isn’t, at least according to the original Myers-Briggs typology, a function of personality type.
When addressing people who appear incapable of responding to rational arguments, it may be that they truly are incapable (i.e. not a in healthy personality state) or it may be that we are not addressing their actual concerns, because we are arguing for and to our own concerns.
People believing what feels good to them can apply on any square of the personality grid. Truth is a slippery customer. Hey, I’m a “P” too, so I’m not necessarily disagreeing with much of your argument, just “adding data”. ("P"s always want more data before coming to a final decision…)
Came across:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/two-california-emergency-room-covid-doctors-may-start-a-revolution-with-calm-science-data-based-press-conference-questioning-of-extreme-measures
I scanned through the video (maybe someone has more patience than me) From the scan, what I concluded was what was presented as facts and jumped on by commentators was pretty much free of any actual, reliable, data. If your hypothesis is that HBV is a “plandemic” then formulate your test and present the data.
Hi Chris. Been watching your videos for about a month and a half now. I really value your data based thoughts and opinions. I was wondering what your thoughts were on this video.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=xfLVxx_lBLU
This guy is an idiot beyond belief. He thinks that that 39% of new yorkers have had covid - and 12 % of california has had covid… so therefore - the death rate is very very tiny. He gets this from the tests done. SO in new york this is random sample? no its sick people… in fact its very sick people… they are not testing everyone and they are not testing mild people … so yes you could imagine there are even more infected… But to say that the tested people of 39% of tests are positive - relates to the total population - as if they tested the total population… If this guy cant think through this - I certainly dont want such stupid dr near me. These are the dangerous Drs… these are the drs that kill people… arrogant and stupid at the same time. he got through med school on his looks alone. Even with his stupid logic, .03 CFR and 100% infected ( 50% now according to him almost ) equals 3 x the rate of death with 10x the rate of infection for the flu… still would equal 30 x more dead than the flu… But its not a problem for drs and his hospital handle while they handle all the other medical conditions…
The serological test for SARS-CoV-2 infection has a further problem with variable specificity issues as it is dependent on the percentage of the non-infected target population who have had a common cold coronavirus (HKU1, NL63, OC43, or 229E) yielding residual IgG-IgM antibodies. For example, a study that found the high positive percentage of homeless for COVID-19 infection was highly biased by the incidence of prior cold virus exposure from living rough.
It appears that there is too much emphasis on Hydroxychloroquine.
Could you evaluate Quercetin plus zinc as an alternative to Hydroxychloroquine alternative in a upcoming youtube video. See Medcram 59 for further discussion on this and additional preventative and decontamination measures. The presentation could have been improved by mentioning whether the Quercetin was pure or in the liposomal or phytosomal form. Worth mentioning that Quercetin availability is also dependent on microbial flora ecology which in turn is dependent on fiber intake. Fiber in turn is decomposed into nutrients that improve colon health such as butyrate that may reduce intestinal damage upon viral infections.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304394016300775
Vshelford thank you for your comments.
I agree with you. It is not correct to judge other people, not the least because people vary in many ways and are always changing at least to some extent.
Still, I propose that we need to withdraw in some ways from the public sphere, or at least prepare our communities wherein we can ride out the dark ages, which clearly have arrived. I think that we need to divert some of our attention away from fruitless arguments in public, which only (counter-productively) serve to identify ourselves as deviants/obstacles to the fiat worshipers.
We must treat everyone equally and with respect. The proper way to do this with a totally irrational and illogical person (the majority) who is merely following the money, is to walk away and not continue to argue (down) to them. We must respect their irrationality and in fact can only agree with them because their title or agency decides the facts and conclusions. After all, the goal of their arguments and studies is NOT truth, based on logical thought, but instead, money, or power. We must respect everyone and not judge others based on their preference for money over truth. The only way I can see to that is to walk away and only deal with other rational thinkers, which again, are in a minority. History repeats itself (or at least rhymes) and we can see the same thing happening again. Original bastions of rationality such as WHO/FDA/CDC seem to be filled, or at least dominated by irrational minds who are merely worshiping money or power. An argument that leads to their power or authority is always the correct one. That is their rule and we should respect their god given right to live their lives that way.
Respecting the money worshipers may require withdrawal into our own communities and private communication systems (which we should set up in my opinion). During the 1930s (the last depression) rational thinkers who publicly opposed the fascists were attacked and even killed, and entire group or groups (Jewish communities) were enemies of the state. The fortunate ones, the ones who fared the best were those who realized this truth early on and got the hell out of Germany early, which in our case may be : escape into resilience communities of our own making.
I like the Japanese in this regard because they learned during the long samurai period not to argue with the money/power worshipers. The samurai lived in privileged high class regions of the big city and the villagers would simply bow, or nod their heads in agreement until the damn thing left their village. They still have this survival tactic, which is the reason why it is so hard to figure out what a Japanese person really thinks when smiling and bowing to an unknown person or authority figure, to this very day.
I am afraid that “taking on” the money (and credentialed power) worshipers by continually disagreeing with them in public is counterproductive particularly since they win the make believe arguments (winning equals money/power/prestige and not an increase or discovery of truth) by possession of a title at an agency. Insulting them by lofty appeals to logic is demeaning to them and merely serves being placed on a domestic terrorist list.
Regarding solutions: PP is a good oasis, and a good forum for finding others to build resilient communities with. A next step, as rational thinkers are progressively discriminated against (thinking about Germany 1930’s again) is to go underground, via private communications outside the control of the fiat money worshipers.
Most days I try to find some data on the effect of wearing gloves on contracting/spreading the virus. I haven’t been able to find any. For health workers in full PPE, maybe they are simply a method of enabling a full outer layer of protection that can be disposed of at the end of each shift (or more frequently) so that any virus particles are also disposed of. However, for the public, it seems to me that wearing gloves doesn’t offer any protection above what wearing a mask provides.
Does anyone know of any information on the efficacy of gloves?
More on the statistical flaws of the serological test
https://medium.com/@balajis/peer-review-of-covid-19-antibody-seroprevalence-in-santa-clara-county-california-1f6382258c25
No mention that this serological test yields very high false positives “due to past or present infection with non-SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus strains, such as coronavirus HKU1, NL63, OC43, or 229E.” Yes, if a person has had a common cold they would likely test positive!!!
https://www.biomedomics.com/products/infectious-disease/covid-19-rt/
I think the value of gloves is not preventing infection directly, as much as making it relatively easy to transition from an infected zone to a clean zone by just removing the gloves.
That’s my working model at least. I also have a new kitten and thus my hands have significant wounds on them so perhaps they have some level of direct impact also in such cases.
When I was out earlier this week and had to pump gas, I was able to take off my gloves and throw them in the trash. If I didn’t have the gloves, I would have tried to use the paper towels there. I think the gloves are a better plan. It’s not like I had soap and water available in my minivan for a nice wash before moving ahead.
Sofistek, I cannot speak to the efficacy of gloves, but with much thought about this subject myself, I can only think of a few instances that gloves might be a logical choice. In medical environments for various reasons, and for those that may not be able to wash their hands frequently whether its the access to a sink and soap or if the hands are injured or too chapped for frequent washing. Aside from that, gloves are unnecessary, wasteful, and often spread more disease for lack of frequent washing.
Yes, EmJayGee, if you have cuts on your hand then a glove would help block that path. That had occurred to me but, in general, I don’t yet see the need for gloves. That’s good because I hate disposable anything, though I’d probably use the time method of deactivating any virus on the gloves, so I could reuse them, if possible.
As for washing hands, just make sure you keep some hand sanitizer available - perhaps put a dispenser in the car?