Coronavirus

Why does everyone opt to whine about the guy asking for the proper context to tony's statement?

Why not just provide the proper context? That's what's being discussed here. Your complaint is that when you and others pretend that tony didn't mean what he clearly said, I keep asking for the proper context. Do you want me to leave the thread and allow you guys to talk past my point as if I didn't bring you the quote right from the horse's mouth? That wouldn't be honest . . . of either of us.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

“…If you get [perform the PCR test at] a cycle threshold of 35 or more…the chances of it being replication-confident [aka accurate] are miniscule…you almost never can culture virus [detect a true positive result] from a 37 threshold cycle…even 36…”
________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Was he saying that a cycle-threshold of anything over 35 will give meaningless results? Cuz that's what I hear. What do you hear?

I didn't say anything about one being superior to the other; I simply observed that you didn't provide a transcript.

I'm not so sure. After all, the whole idea of the plandemic was to make the world believe people were getting covid and dying. That's why they used a test which would provide false positives. As you already pointed out, "Ninety percent false positives means no pandemic."

Patients with Covid and flu double the risk of dying, say scientists
Source: Guardian

Covid-19 patients who have been hospitalised should also be routinely tested for flu, researchers have said. The call was made after the publication of a paper in the medical journal the Lancet that revealed having both conditions more than doubles the risk of a patient dying.

Scientists also discovered that individuals who had contracted both Sars-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19, and influenza viruses were more than four times more likely to require ventilation support and 2.4 times more likely to die than if they just had Covid-19.

“We found that the combination of Covid-19 and flu viruses is particularly dangerous,” said Professor Kenneth Baillie of Edinburgh University. “We expect that Covid-19 will circulate with flu, increasing the chance of co-infections. That is why we should change our testing strategy for Covid-19 patients in hospital and test for flu much more widely.”

*snip*

“We were surprised that the risk of death more than doubled when people were infected by both flu and Covid-19 viruses,” said Professor Calum Semple of Liverpool University. “It is now very important that people get fully vaccinated and boosted against both viruses, and not leave it until it is too late.”

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/27/patients-with-covid-and-flu-double-the-risk-of-dying-say-scientists

Yes, there's no one who doesn't know that I provided a quote from tony, but didn't provide the transcript . . . until I did, at which point you watched with your own eyes as tony said that a cycle-threshold of anything over 35 makes the test meaningless. But even after seeing it, you're still failing to provide the proper context you insist exists despite your failure to provide it.

Let's just agree to agree that the proper context you allude to exists only in your mind.

By the way, what's so bad about what tony said that has you defending an imaginary context with such fervor?

OMG, you little Johnny-one-note! I can't believe you're still on about this. You must be the absolute devil to live with!

We Study Virus Evolution. Here’s Where We Think the Coronavirus Is Going.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/03/28/opinion/coronavirus-mutation-future.html?action=click&algo=bandit-all-surfaces-time-cutoff-30_filter_new_arm_10_1&alpha=0.05&block=trending_recirc&fellback=false&imp_id=561475047&impression_id=0152db95-ae8a-11ec-9959-1732caa73b57&index=2&pgtype=Article&pool=pool%2F91fcf81c-4fb0-49ff-bd57-a24647c85ea1&region=footer&req_id=995734146&surface=eos-most-popular-story&variant=1_bandit-all-surfaces-time-cutoff-30_filter_new_arm_10_1

The charts are easy to understand.

March 28, 2022

By Sarah Cobey, Jesse Bloom and Tyler Starr and Nathaniel Lash

Dr. Cobey studies the interaction of immunity, virus evolution and transmission at the University of Chicago. Dr. Bloom and Dr. Starr study virus evolution at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle. Mr. Lash is a graphics editor for Opinion.

As scientists who study how viruses evolve, we are often asked about the future of the coronavirus. Will it go away? Get worse? Fade into the background of our lives? Become seasonal like the flu?

Here’s what we know: The virus’s Omicron variant was significantly more infectious and more resistant to vaccines than the original strain that first emerged in Wuhan, China. There’s no reason, at least biologically, that the virus won’t continue to evolve. The coronavirus variants that have emerged thus far sample only a fraction of the genetic space that is most likely available for evolutionary exploration.
05101520

Many coronavirus vaccines train the immune system to recognize a particular section of the original virus: the 201 amino acids that allow the virus to latch onto human cells.

Only two of those amino acids were mutated in the Delta variant. The mutations weren’t enough to make vaccines ineffective.

Fifteen of the 201 amino acids that vaccines target were mutated in Omicron.The mutations helped Omicron evade the immune system and infect people who had been vaccinated or previously infected.

But the virus can mutate much further than the handful of changes seen in Omicron. Each amino acid can mutate 19 different ways.

Scientists have already documented more than 400 other mutations in the amino acids that vaccines target.

By our count, there are nearly 2,000 other ways that the 201 targeted amino acids could mutate and still be able to attach to human cells.
Source: Bloom Lab (Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center) research and analysis of GISAID viral genetic sequence data. Note: Figures for Omicron mutations show only the mutations present in the BA.1 lineage.

A virus like SARS-CoV-2 faces one overriding pressure: to become better at spreading. Viruses that cause more infections will be more successful. The virus can do this by becoming more contagious and by skirting around the immune system. This coronavirus has undergone several adaptations that make it better at spreading in humans.

But although many scientists, including us, expected SARS-CoV-2 would be under evolutionary pressure to transmit better, it’s been remarkable just how well the virus has responded to that pressure. Recent variants like Omicron and Delta are several times more transmissible than the strain that first spread around the globe in early 2020. That’s a huge increase, and makes SARS-CoV-2 more contagious than many other human respiratory viruses. These big jumps in contagiousness have played a major role in driving the pandemic so far.
Chart showing properties of certain SARS-CoV-2 variants. Along the X axis, reductions in antibody effectiveness for variants is shown. Along the Y axis are figures on how much more contagious the variant is compared to the original SARS-CoV-2.

How the coronavirus has mutated

Comparing coronavirus variants to early 2020 strains.

Omicron

4× as contagious

Delta

2×

Mu

Gamma

Alpha

Beta

Antibodies are

less effective

Epsilon

1×

Early 2020 strains

1×

2×

5×

10×

20×

40×

Estimated reduction in antibody effectiveness
Sources: Contagiousness is based on estimates of growth advantage by Marlin Figgins and Trevor Bedford. Antibody escape is based on antibody sera collected from patients treated with the Moderna vaccine. Note: Figures are approximate. Figures for Omicron reflect the variant’s BA.1 lineage and are extrapolated based on findings of a 105 percent growth advantage by Omicron compared to Delta.

How much more transmissible SARS-CoV-2 can become is an open question, but there are limits. Even evolution is constrained: a cheetah can’t evolve to be infinitely fast, and SARS-CoV-2 won’t become infinitely transmissible.

Other viruses have reached plateaus in their ability to spread. Some respiratory viruses such as measles are more contagious than today’s SARS-CoV-2. Others, such as influenza, are generally not as contagious as SARS-CoV-2. We don’t know when this coronavirus will hit its transmissibility plateau, but it will happen eventually.

Viruses such as this one can also spread better by “escaping” immunity to prior variants. Early in the pandemic, few people had immunity to SARS-CoV-2. But now much of the world has antibodies from vaccination or prior infection. Because these antibodies can block infection, variants with mutations that skirt around them have an increasing advantage.

The importance of immune escape has become apparent with Omicron. Prior variants like Delta were only modestly able to sidestep antibodies, but Omicron has many mutations that reduce the ability of antibodies to recognize it. This, coupled with how contagious Omicron is, has enabled it to cause a huge wave of infections.

The fact that the virus developed the ability to infect people who had been vaccinated or previously infected shouldn’t have been a surprise, but how it happened with Omicron certainly was. Evolution often proceeds stepwise, with new successful variants descended from recent successful ones. That’s why six months ago many scientists, including us, thought the next variant would descend from Delta, which was dominant at the time. But evolution defied our expectations, and we got Omicron, which has a huge number of mutations and isn’t descended from Delta. It’s not known exactly how the virus made the big evolutionary jump that led to Omicron, although many scientists (including us) suspect the variant may have emerged from someone who couldn’t fight off the virus well, allowing it time to mutate.

It’s impossible to say whether future variants will have more big Omicron-like jumps or more typical stepwise changes, but we are confident SARS-CoV-2 will continue to evolve to escape immunity.

While transmissibility of viruses does plateau at a certain point, other human viruses that escape immunity keep doing so. The influenza vaccine has been updated annually for decades to chase viral evolution, and some influenza viruses show no sign of slowing down. Immune escape is an endless evolutionary arms race, because the immune system can always make new antibodies and the virus has a vast set of mutations to explore in response. For instance, Omicron has just a tiny fraction of the many mutations that have been observed in SARS-CoV-2 or related bat viruses, which are in turn just a small fraction of what lab experiments suggest the virus could potentially explore.

Taking all this together, we expect SARS-CoV-2 will continue to cause new epidemics, but they will increasingly be driven by the ability to skirt around the immune system. In this sense, the future may look something like the seasonal flu, where new variants cause waves of cases each year. If this happens, which we expect it will, vaccines may need to be updated regularly similar to the flu vaccines unless we develop broader variant-proof vaccines.

And of course, how much all this matters for public health depends on how sick the virus makes us. That is the hardest prediction to make, because evolution selects for viruses that spread well, and whether that makes disease severity go up or down is mostly a matter of luck. But we do know that immunity reduces disease severity even when it doesn’t fully block infections and spread, and immunity gained from vaccination and prior infections has helped blunt the impact of the Omicron wave in many countries. Updated or improved vaccines and other measures that slow transmission remain our best strategies for handling an uncertain evolutionary future.

Sarah Cobey (@sarahcobey) runs a computational group at the University of Chicago that investigates the interaction of immunity, viral evolution and transmission. Jesse Bloom (@jbloom_lab) leads a lab at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle that uses a mix of experiments and computation to study the evolution of viruses such as SARS-CoV-2. Tyler Starr (@tylernstarr) is a postdoctoral fellow in Dr. Bloom's lab. Nathaniel Lash (@nat_lash) is a graphics editor for Opinion.

OMG! You little one-note complainer. How about those little one-note failures who can't seem to find the proper context they insist exists? They can't provide it, but that doesn't stop them from pretending they have.

They're very sure I've taken tony's statement out of context, and they keep saying so over and over and over again. But much like you, they just can't seem to bring that proper context to the discussion. And much like you, they want to take it out on the guy who's pointing out their deficiency.

Why don't you really help them out by providing the proper context. Hightor is sure it exists, but he's having trouble getting it out for some reason. Or, maybe it's just an oversight on his part. Either way, why don't you provide that elusive context to tony's statement that will show that a cycle-threshold of anything over 35 will give meaningful results.

You're the only one who cares, can't you tell? If people were interested, they'd debate/discuss this with you. The fact that you have had to keep drumming on about this for how many pages and you are still alone in this discussion doesn't tell you anything?

Nobody cares about this. Move on. You're like Trump where you're deaf and blind to what's in front of you. No great crowds interested in this topic.

You may need a hammer to get his attention.

May need Trump himself.

What I've shown is medical fraud. You and everyone else in this thread don't want to acknowledge that. So you come here to make the case that I've taken the statement out of context. And you do so without any proof whatsoever.

This is cognitive dissonance at its best. I've pointed out medical fraud, and I've put it right in front of your face. Perhaps you'd care to explain why you would rather support those here who ignore fraud rather than acknowledge what's right there in front of your face.

Did I take tony's statement out of context? See, how this works is that, if you believe I did, you need to provide the proper context. So far, you've shown yourself to be no different from the others in that you have nothing to offer except your complaints about being asked to provide the proper context to a statement you don't want to acknowledge. That's not honest.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

“…If you get [perform the PCR test at] a cycle threshold of 35 or more…the chances of it being replication-confident [aka accurate] are miniscule…you almost never can culture virus [detect a true positive result] from a 37 threshold cycle…even 36…”
________________________________________________________________________________________________________

So, was tony telling the truth there? Or are you going to complain your way out of answering a very simple question?

If only you realized how little you understand about your own posts. It's really laughable.

What kind of hammer will I need to get you to admit that the FDA recommended a PCR-test cycle threshold of 40? And will the same hammer also get you to admit that tony said a cycle-threshold of anything over 35 will give meaningless results? Those are the facts.

Do you understand what "meaningless results" means?

Do you? How about 'inconsequential'?

How about 'misdirection'?

Much of Shanghai locked down as mass Covid-19 testing begins
Source: Politico

BEIJING — China began locking down most of its largest city of Shanghai on Monday as a coronavirus outbreak surges and amid questions about the economic toll of the nation’s “zero-Covid” strategy.

Shanghai’s Pudong financial district and nearby areas will be locked down from early Monday to Friday as citywide mass testing gets underway, the local government said. In the second phase of the lockdown, the vast downtown area west of the Huangpu River that divides the city will then start its own five-day lockdown Friday.

Residents will be required to stay home and deliveries will be left at checkpoints to ensure there is no contact with the outside world. Offices and all businesses not considered essential will be closed and public transport suspended.

Already, many communities within the city of 26 million have been locked down, with their residents required to submit to multiple tests for Covid-19. And Shanghai’s Disney theme park is among the businesses that closed earlier.



Read more: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/27/china-shanghai-covid-lockdown-00020778

What are you talking about? I make a point, and others come in to do everything but discuss it. Did it ever occur to you that it takes two to tango? Like right now, you're obviously not here to discuss anything. Nevertheless, here you are offering a continuation of that nonproductive presence.

Why are you not providing proper context to tony's statement. If you believe I've taken it out of context, why are you failing to support your belief? It's as simple as providing the proper context. When you do, I promise I'll never talk about it again. But simply dismissing the obvious medical fraud on the grounds that you're tired of hearing about is akin to closing your eyes to it.

The fact that you can't provide the proper context that others say exist proves that you're only here to complain . . . again.

Perhaps it is because neither I nor most probably anyone else here is a clinical pathologist?
,
You seem to be one - why don't you start a trial at medical tribunal? And if 8 U.S. Code § 1347 is invoked, then there's even up to 20 years in prison.

Unfortunately, some people are so entranced by authority that they no longer understand that when tony says a cycle-threshold of anything over 35 will give you meaningless results, he means that a cycle-threshold of anything over 35 will give meaningless results. However, the FDA recommended a cycle-threshold of 40.

So, was it the FDA who was being dishonest with their recommendation or was it tony who made it clear that using a cycle-threshold of 40 would give meaningless results? Since they both can't be right, you must have deemed one smarter than the other. So which one do you trust more?

If you picked tony, how do you explain his decision to keep quiet as the FDA recommended a cycle-threshold of 40? I'm interested in where your loyalties lie.

Why? I am quite indifferent to what a doctor of any speciality in the USA says and also to what a medical authority there stipulates.

Where my loyalties are generally speaking, that's none of your business, and I don't give a damn about your interest.