Good Sam Club Open Roads Forum: Around the Campfire: 2019–20 CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC POSTINGS
Open Roads Forum Already a member? Login here.   If not, Register Today!  |  Help

Newest  |  Active  |  Popular  |  RVing FAQ Forum Rules  |  Forum Posting Help and Support  |  Contact  

Search:   Advanced Search

Search only in Around the Campfire

Open Roads Forum  >  Around the Campfire  >  General Topics

 > 2019–20 CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC POSTINGS

Reply to Topic  |  Subscribe  |  Print Page  |  Post New Topic  | 
Page of 96  
Prev  |  Next
Reisender

NA

Senior Member

Joined: 12/09/2018

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 11/19/20 08:30pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

MEXICOWANDERER wrote:

I am curious to see how Thanksgiving actually pans out. Real numbers. We seem to be getting close to a release of vaccine here in Mexico. Has anyone seen different numbers (28) for the number of days needed after vaccination for a vaccine to build sufficient immunity? Getting jabbed is not instant immunity. I hope there are programs to be instituted that will educate people to that fact.


28 days. 21 days after first inoculation you get the second. 7 days later you are good to go.

MEXICOWANDERER

las peñas, michoacan, mexico

Senior Member

Joined: 06/01/2007

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 11/19/20 10:20pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

My official moniker is going to be...

HIDE AND WATCH

My list of aggravations should make the # 1 list for Cytokine Storm candidate premier class [emoticon]

BCSnob

Middletown, MD

Senior Member

Joined: 02/23/2002

View Profile



Posted: 11/20/20 07:24am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Quote:

Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 are associated with protection against reinfection
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.18.20234369


Abstract

Background It is critical to understand whether infection with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) protects from subsequent reinfection. Methods We investigated the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive results in seropositive and seronegative healthcare workers (HCWs) attending asymptomatic and symptomatic staff testing at Oxford University Hospitals, UK. Baseline antibody status was determined using anti-spike and/or anti-nucleocapsid IgG assays and staff followed for up to 30 weeks. We used Poisson regression to estimate the relative incidence of PCR-positive results and new symptomatic infection by antibody status, accounting for age, gender and changes in incidence over time. Results A total of 12219 HCWs participated and had anti-spike IgG measured, 11052 were followed up after negative and 1246 after positive antibody results including 79 who seroconverted during follow up. 89 PCR-confirmed symptomatic infections occurred in seronegative individuals (0.46 cases per 10,000 days at risk) and no symptomatic infections in those with anti-spike antibodies. Additionally, 76 (0.40/10,000 days at risk) anti-spike IgG seronegative individuals had PCR-positive tests in asymptomatic screening, compared to 3 (0.21/10,000 days at risk) seropositive individuals. Overall, positive baseline anti-spike antibodies were associated with lower rates of PCR-positivity (with or without symptoms) (adjusted rate ratio 0.24 95%CI 0.08-0.76, p=0.015). Rate ratios were similar using anti-nucleocapsid IgG alone or combined with anti-spike IgG to determine baseline status. Conclusions Prior SARS-CoV-2 infection that generated antibody responses offered protection from reinfection for most people in the six months following infection. Further work is required to determine the long-term duration and correlates of post-infection immunity.


12,219 British health care workers participated in a study
At the beginning of the study all were tested for antibodies against the spike and neucleocapsid portions of the virus
11,052 did not have antibodies
1,246 had antibodies
All were followed for up to 30 weeks
79 of those initially negative for antibodies developed antibodies during the study
165 of those that initially did not have antibodies became infected (PCR positive); 89 developed symptoms and 76 were asymptotic
3 of those that initially had antibodies became infected (PCR positive) but were asymptotic

The presence of antibodies (same antibodies measured post vaccination) reduced the risk of becoming PCR positive and when positive there were no symptoms
This study went out to 6 months

MEXICOWANDERER

las peñas, michoacan, mexico

Senior Member

Joined: 06/01/2007

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 11/20/20 09:48am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

I am wondering if it is now possible to interrogate T cells activity outside of a lab?

MEXICOWANDERER

las peñas, michoacan, mexico

Senior Member

Joined: 06/01/2007

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 11/20/20 03:09pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

AstraZeneca Announced today their vaccine was greater than 99 percent effective even for seniors. Eg: Johns Hopkins

I am rolling up my sleeve...let's get this show on the road [emoticon] [emoticon]

MEXICOWANDERER

las peñas, michoacan, mexico

Senior Member

Joined: 06/01/2007

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 11/21/20 10:34am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

BIG PHARMA GLOSSARY NEEDED

90% Effective. 99% effective. OK so they're graded 'effective'. Injected then set loose in their own particular environment? A failure means a positive test? Actual becoming sick? With an error of False Positives? What kind of test to determine efficacy?

What is the percentage of sick infected that develops an acute cytokine storm? There isn't the faintest clue as to the frequency of this dangerous reaction.

Is there a national database that records the above and the percentage of infected who are superspreaders yet asymptomatic? Can superspreaders be detected by their viral loads as well as verified loose itineraries?

As a researcher in a different discipline (electrical engineering) I would be roasted alive if I offered data on a White Paper that had no footnotes. Yet the medical community is continually tossing out random nuggets of information. It SHOULD BE REQUIRED at the very beginning of any note or declaration if the following information has been PEER REVIEWED. PEER REVIEWED, NOT PEER REVIEWED should appear below the title, before the paragraph of the article begins.

As a documented engineer/researcher I am beginning to take Public Relations releases by big Pharma with two grains of salt. Same for alphabet US public health agencies, and the World Health Organization.

Look for the words PEER REVIEWED.

dturm

Lake County, IN

Moderator

Joined: 01/29/2001

View Profile



Good Sam RV Club Member

Offline
Posted: 11/21/20 11:25am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

What we are getting is press releases from the PR departments of the drug companies. The actual data is what is sent to the FDA where the data will be reviewed by their vaccine advisory committee. This is kind of like peer review as this committee is composed of experts in the field of immunology/vaccines and is independent from big Pharma.

The 95% effective reported in the press really doesn't give us a complete picture of how the vaccine works. Is it possible that it protects from serious disease but doesn't completely prevent infection? Regardless, the 95% efficacy is way higher than the "acceptable" level that was expected when this process started.

Stay tuned, we will get more complete information.


Doug & Sandy
Kaylee (12 year old Terrier of some sort), Sasha 3 yr old Golden
Kaiya at the Rainbow Bridge
2008 Southwind
2009 Honda CRV


Check out blog.rv.net


MEXICOWANDERER

las peñas, michoacan, mexico

Senior Member

Joined: 06/01/2007

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 11/21/20 12:41pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Much appreciated sir. When I issued white papers the documents were the only instruments recognized. Commentary was treated as mere gossip. Hydrometers, meters, scales, and any other hardware had to be NIST listed with documentation and calibration test dates.

All of the US alphabet health agencies have done a remarkably shoddy job with regards to issuing concise reports. Reports with percentage and empirical values. With regard to answers only the CDC has answered and it was in regard to the 2019-2020 influenza failure. To quote "We Blew It". After reading even that much, I have almost forgiven them.
We need better mandatory standards with the FDA even if it means instituting mandatory standards and regulations in the form of strict laws with punitive controls. We have appropriate agencies that demand secrecy. Public health should not be secretive.

pianotuna

Regina, SK, Canada

Senior Member

Joined: 12/18/2004

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 11/21/20 01:45pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Hi All,

It certainly IS infectious!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/travel/2020/11/20/new-zealand-flight-covid/


Regards, Don
My ride is a 28 foot Class C, 256 watts solar, 556 amp hours of AGM in two battery banks 12 volt batteries, 3000 watt Magnum hybrid inverter, Sola Basic Autoformer, Microair Easy Start.

MEXICOWANDERER

las peñas, michoacan, mexico

Senior Member

Joined: 06/01/2007

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 11/21/20 07:37pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Once inoculated it becomes a moot point.

GOOGLE MARY MALLON

Reply to Topic  |  Subscribe  |  Print Page  |  Post New Topic  | 
Page of 96  
Prev  |  Next

Open Roads Forum  >  Around the Campfire  >  General Topics

 > 2019–20 CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC POSTINGS
Search:   Advanced Search

Search only in Around the Campfire


New posts No new posts
Closed, new posts Closed, no new posts
Moved, new posts Moved, no new posts

Adjust text size:




© 2021 CWI, Inc. © 2021 Good Sam Enterprises, LLC. All Rights Reserved.