Coronavirus (NO POLITICAL OR SOCIAL COMMENTARY PLEASE)

[Pondosinatra]

Originally Posted by MrHT

Well supposedly, they have one now, but it's in the testing phase and the testing takes months, which why it won't be ready until 12-18 months. I guess there's a chance that it could fail during the testing and then it's back to square one.

What if there never is an effective vaccine?

[rdodolak]

Originally Posted by IndyMLVC

AND we're getting financial assistance from the government.

As one label owner that visits these forums would put it: Money doesn't glow on trees.

[rdodolak]

Originally Posted by IndyMLVC

And to people who want that, I always say: You first. You, your family and your friends. And let the chips fall where they may.

Hey...I mean, it's no biggie, right? So then let the people who are concerned about it stay home and let the rest of the people go back to work and we'll see how it works out.

At least we have that settled, I'd prefer to continue to work rather than lock myself up and live in fear. But if you prefer to stay locked up than, by all means, that is your choice.

Originally Posted by IndyMLVC

And if someone kills themselves over this, they weren't mentally stable to begin with.

So, it's OK to let those people die because you see them as weak (i.e. mentally unstable), but you're OK with keeping everyone locked up for god knows how long because you're afraid that others would die (some may consider them weak as well) from a coronavirus.

Originally Posted by Britbuffguy

And that those people would have to get a hard working/low paying job instead...most of which are still working out there in the sick.

Originally Posted by Britbuffguy

I gather Underworld is very entitled, probably never had to work hard for anything he/she has got in life. Clearly only thinking about his/her self.

You seem awfully bitter about people who have other than low paying jobs. Do you think only low paying jobs can consist of hard work? One does not infer the other.

[Bluballs31]

Originally Posted by Pondosinatra

As in South Korea...more than 200 'recovered' people re-infected.

What if there will never be a virus. What if you keep getting re-infected over and over again.

Time to check out of this sinking ship...

it might not be they are re-infected but simply the virus is still detected in them. It's like professional athletes who do steroids and a small percentage keeps showing up in future tests despite them being off of it.

There's unknowns, what is known though is social distancing is working and the least infected obviously gives better odds to figure out how best to contain this.

I don't get how some people can be so selfish in this. I'm young and healthy, lost plenty of business but i'll cross that bridge later when things recover. For now it's about protecting my family and hoping those I care about remain in my life.

We can all find a new job eventually if needed. We aren't finding new parents, siblings, grandparents, etc though

[IndyMLVC]

Originally Posted by rdodolak

So, it's OK to let those people die because you see them as weak (i.e. mentally unstable), but you're OK with keeping everyone locked up for god knows how long because you're afraid that others would die (some may consider them weak as well) from a coronavirus.

No. I didn't say it was ok. I was saying it wasn't a direct result of the virus. Don't put words into my mouth.

Originally Posted by rdodolak

At least we have that settled, I'd prefer to continue to work rather than lock myself up and live in fear. But if you prefer to stay locked up than, by all means, that is your choice.

Not really my choice. The film/TV industry won't be up for another 3-4 months. So I'll be able to sit this out anyway.

And it's not about "fear." It's about "protection."

One in 1000 people in NYC have died from this. Sorry if that's not enough to scare some people but I'd rather not have that number go up.

[jonmoz]

Originally Posted by IndyMLVC

None of that equates.

I don't know where you live but, when it comes to the latter, here in the city they are constantly promoting alternatives for women who are in abusive relationships during this time. I know because I get the texts.

And if someone kills themselves over this, they weren't mentally stable to begin with.

Not the best way to look at things, I could say a lot of people who have died were sick already, but where would that get us?.

The main issue here in the U.K and with the U.S, is having a blanket policy that affects the whole country, when in reality not all places are have the same rates of infection, for instance in the U.S the state of New York has 50% of all the deaths, this is because they all live on top of each other, same in the U.K where London is affected far more, so why would you place the same restrictions to less populated areas, places where people are not loving as close together?.

Does not make sense.

[jonmoz]

Originally Posted by IndyMLVC

It would be enormously difficult. But we all should have savings. And, if we don't, you have to figure out what else to do. Sorry, I don't buy that at all. And that's coming from someone who has dealt with anxiety/depression for my entire life. Losing your job isn't a reason to kill yourself.



It's not always about that. Not everyone that's being severely affected by this are "weak" or "most susceptible."

I wouldn't be going back to work tomorrow. Nope. I'll let this sit for at least a month after things "open back up" to see how the world falls apart (or not).

Unfortunately not everybody is lucky enough to have savings to fall back on, in an ideal world we all would have money put away for a rainy day, but the harsh reality of the world today is a lot of people live paycheck to paycheck, and the gap between rich and poor has only got larger,

[jonmoz]

Originally Posted by IndyMLVC

No. I didn't say it was ok. I was saying it wasn't a direct result of the virus. Don't put words into my mouth.



Not really my choice. The film/TV industry won't be up for another 3-4 months. So I'll be able to sit this out anyway.

And it's not about "fear." It's about "protection."

One in 1000 people in NYC have died from this. Sorry if that's not enough to scare some people but I'd rather not have that number go up.

You also do not no it's not a result of the virus either, people seem to treat this as it's so simple, when it's not as clear cut as you are making out, I am assuming you are not a mental health expert, as I am not too, so let's not use phrases like "And if someone kills themselves over this, they weren't mentally stable to begin with.", as you haven't got a clue what you are talking about.

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by rdodolak

At least we have that settled, I'd prefer to continue to work rather than lock myself up and live in fear.

You realize it's not just about YOU? Unless you've been tested, you could definitely be an asymptomatic carrier of the virus, and just by going out you could spread it to others, including friends, relatives, loved ones, co-workers. Some of them could even end up dying from it.

[Moe Szyslak]

Originally Posted by jonmoz

Not the best way to look at things, I could say a lot of people who have died were sick already, but where would that get us?.

The main issue here in the U.K and with the U.S, is having a blanket policy that affects the whole country, when in reality not all places are have the same rates of infection, for instance in the U.S the state of New York has 50% of all the deaths, this is because they all live on top of each other, same in the U.K where London is affected far more, so why would you place the same restrictions to less populated areas, places where people are not loving as close together?.

Does not make sense.

Wanted to clarify that US is not under a blanket, national lockdown. Stay-at-home orders and business restrictions are being handled at the state level.

You didn't necessarily say otherwise, but I'm clearing that up just in case.

[Josep5349]

Originally Posted by jonmoz

Not the best way to look at things, I could say a lot of people who have died were sick already, but where would that get us?.

The main issue here in the U.K and with the U.S, is having a blanket policy that affects the whole country, when in reality not all places are have the same rates of infection, for instance in the U.S the state of New York has 50% of all the deaths, this is because they all live on top of each other, same in the U.K where London is affected far more, so why would you place the same restrictions to less populated areas, places where people are not loving as close together?.

Does not make sense.

Well, in the Uk, had it not been a nationwide lockdown you’d be looking at an influx to those less restricted areas from, say, London, increasing the risk of infection to the local community. We saw that trend in the early days just before the lockdown was implemented. Under region by region measures, restricting movement would be resource intensive and unenforceable.

[jonmoz]

Originally Posted by Josep5349

Well, in the Uk, had it not been a nationwide lockdown you’d be looking at an influx to those less restricted areas from, say, London, increasing the risk of infection to the local community. We saw that trend in the early days just before the lockdown was implemented. Under region by region measures, restricting movement would be resource intensive and unenforceable.

I am not saying it would be easy, and as you say probably best put everyone under the same rules, but you will still get people not willing to comply totally, and you do have to look at the economy and peoples mental health, as this will cause issues too.

[jonmoz]

Originally Posted by Moe Szyslak

Wanted to clarify that US is not under a blanket, national lockdown. Stay-at-home orders and business restrictions are being handled at the state level.

You didn't necessarily say otherwise, but I'm clearing that up just in case.

I was aware of that, which is why when Trump says he calls the shots as to when things open up again, he will struggle without congress granting him extra powers.

[jonmoz]

Originally Posted by Josep5349

Well, in the Uk, had it not been a nationwide lockdown you’d be looking at an influx to those less restricted areas from, say, London, increasing the risk of infection to the local community. We saw that trend in the early days just before the lockdown was implemented. Under region by region measures, restricting movement would be resource intensive and unenforceable.

Yes but how strict have the lock down been in reality, as people can still go out and exercise and shop for necessities, of course the definition of necessities is very vague from the government.

[Member-222782]

Originally Posted by Moe Szyslak

PA opening select liquor stores for curbside pickup:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/6abc.co...virus/6113271/

That's great but what about street hustlers? When can they go back to work peddling their junk??

I'm so glad I don't depend on alcohol to cope with life.

[Josep5349]

Originally Posted by jonmoz

Yes but how strict have the lock down been in reality, as people can still go out and exercise and shop for necessities, of course the definition of necessities is very vague from the government.

I think they’ve been as strict as they thought they could get away with. Some counties have stricter measures, others are more relaxed. I think when it comes to making those decisions one of the many factors that would have been considered is the general nature of the population, which is no easy task. I have a feeling people here (UK) would have been more resistant to stricter measures in the long run.

I know some people here think the lockdown such as it is, should have been in place earlier. I wonder how seriously it would have been taken at that point. I was in London on business on the evening the PM recommended London pubs, clubs etc to close - about a week prior to full nationwide lockdown. That night there was a heightened sense of awareness. Anyway, I thought it prudent to cut short my trip and get back home to Scotland the next day. When I got back home I went to shops and people were wondering around as usual, I mentioned the difference in mood and people thought I was exaggerating. I really don’t think a nationwide lockdown would have been taken seriously at that time, and that could have had a detrimental effect in the longer run. It’s a complex issue, but I think people had to realise for themselves the lockdown was necessary, before they were willing to go along with it.

[dobyblue]

Preliminary report, awaiting peer review - https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1....043166v1.full

Clinical benefit of remdesivir in rhesus macaques infected with SARS-CoV-2

The bioavailability and protective effect of remdesivir in the lungs of infected rhesus macaques supports treatment of COVID-19 patients with remdesivir. Data from clinical trials in humans are pending, but our data in rhesus macaques indicate that remdesivir treatment should be considered as early as clinically possible to prevent progression to severe pneumonia in COVID-19 patients.

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by MrHT

Well supposedly, they have one now, but it's in the testing phase and the testing takes months, which why it won't be ready until 12-18 months. I guess there's a chance that it could fail during the testing and then it's back to square one.

Industry mag Fierce Pharma reported on an AI forecast from Clarivate looking at the two lead candidates this past week-end:

https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/...based-forecast

Clarivate estimated that Moderna has just a 5% probability of success with its COVID-19 vaccine mRNA-1273, and that the time window for approval would be 5.2 years. The low probability of success reflects the fact that mRNA is a new, unproven approach to vaccines, said Sarah Hardison, Ph.D., head of product, regulatory and pharmacovigilance at Clarivate

The other vaccine candidate that Clarivate evaluated was Inovio’s DNA vaccine INO-4800, which the company moved into clinical testing last week. Clarivate forecasts a probability of success of 15% for INO-4800 and an approval timeline of 5.5 years.

Keep in mind, they skipped animal testing. Previous cororvirus vaccines in mice showed good efficacy, but had poor safety outcomes. Testing doesn't take months, it takes years.

Paul Offit MD, rotavirus vaccine developer:

https://nationalinterest.org/feature...rs-away-140152

When you are where they are now—which is about forty-five people tested—you do need to gradually expand that to thousands of people at the dose you think you’re looking at and make sure a significant percentage of the population is receiving that, and that that population represents the U.S. population. You want those people to develop an immune response that would protect them, even though you don’t, right now, have immunological correlate protection. We don’t know that, because we aren’t doing animal studies and we obviously aren’t doing human trial studies with this virus. Then you would need an efficacy trial, and that would best be done on healthcare workers.

Healthcare workers are the ones who are most likely to come in contact with COVID-19 patients, both by frequently being in contact and in close contact with them because they have to examine them. That would probably be the group with which to do an ethical trial, but that takes time. That takes years. For us, in the development of the Rotavirus vaccine, that took sixteen years before we got to the large, definitive, phase three trial. That was a placebo-controlled, prospective, eleven-country, four-year, $350 million trial, on 70,000 babies. That was a definitive phase three trial.

My sense is that they are moving along in this “break the glass mode,” which is to say that they will use fewer people in these studies and may bypass the FDA

That's why Bill Gates is already asking for the companies involved in coronavirus vaccine development to be indemnified. I initially wrote "I guess that's why", but Gates has specifically stated in an e-mail that reduced safety studies would be the reason to ask for indemnity.

[Lacit170]

Originally Posted by mar3o

https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/...navirus/?rel=1

"Bottom line: There’s scientific evidence finding that (1) masks prevent flu infection and (2) surgical masks prevent infection of viruses like the coronavirus (Covid-19), as well as more sophisticated N95 masks."

When I was in Wal-Mart the other day for health supplies I wore a basic dust mask like you wear when sanding/woodworking, and it was a nightmare. Wal-Mart was packed, and the mask fit poorly, and partly affected my peripheral vision, and I was sweating a ton because of it too. The whole trip was like a nightmare and I spend probably twice the time as usual because I was so hot and sweating and couldn't see very well. It wasn't the Wal-Mart I usually shop in so I was unfamiliar with where things were in the health isles, and the mask was really affecting my visibility.

I have no idea if N95 masks would offer a better experience. I'm guessing a surgical mask would surely be more comfortable and cause less sweating, and according to this article, offer practically the same protection as an N95 mask. Read the article before saying this is not correct.

I can't imagine wearing that dust mask again.

By the way, there were lots of people wearing all types of different masks, and some not wearing masks too. Many were pulling the masks down to talk. One guy had his hand all over it. One wore it off his nose so his whole nose was exposed. What's the point of forcing masks when nobody is going to wear them right anyways?

Originally Posted by mar3o

Not true. Read the article I linked to above about surgical masks being as effective as N95 masks at preventing the flu.

lol, honestly, im not going to bother reading an article/study that is telling people a surgical mask has the same efficiency as an N95. thats just asinine.

Originally Posted by IndyMLVC

And to people who want that, I always say: You first. You, your family and your friends. And let the chips fall where they may.

Hey...I mean, it's no biggie, right? So then let the people who are concerned about it stay home and let the rest of the people go back to work and we'll see how it works out.

thats precisely what some people want. and youd likely be shocked by the amount of people who would be willing to go along with that experiment.

Originally Posted by Bluballs31

Yeah because only old people are dying from this right? What about the depression from losing people to this virus and not being able to even have a proper funeral?

Job loss and spousal abuse is nothing to scoff at but let’s handle the major problem at hand that’s killing hundreds a day. You live in NY too according to your location, you should know we have it worse than most.

check the stats for deaths by age bracket... just sayin

[IndyMLVC]

Originally Posted by Lacit170

thats precisely what some people want. and youd likely be shocked by the amount of people who would be willing to go along with that experiment

I wouldn't be shocked at how many idiots there are out there.
Not remotely.

I put up pictures of some of the protests from yesterday and they were taken down. Not sure why. The idiots were congregating in many states yesterday.