Good Sam Club Open Roads Forum: Search
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  



Open Roads Forum  >  Search the Forums

 > Your search for posts made by 'BCSnob' found 324 matches.

Sort by:    Search within results:
Page of 17  
Next
  Subject Author Date Posted Forum
RE: 2019–20 CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC POSTINGS

Still waiting on published data (as opposed to opinion) showing the lack of effectiveness of surgical masks at preventing the spread of covid.
BCSnob 09/25/20 11:41am Around the Campfire
RE: 2019–20 CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC POSTINGS

There is an MD in Australia that says the earth is flat; do you choose to believe him?
BCSnob 09/25/20 11:28am Around the Campfire
RE: 2019–20 CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC POSTINGS

Notice of Retraction: Effectiveness of Surgical and Cotton Masks in Blocking SARS-CoV-2 Annals of Internal Medicine, 2020 According to recommendations by the editors of Annals of Internal Medicine, we are retracting our article, “Effectiveness of Surgical and Cotton Masks in Blocking SARS-CoV-2. A Controlled Comparison in 4 Patients,” which was published at Annals.org on 6 April 2020 (1). We had not fully recognized the concept of limit of detection (LOD) of the in-house reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction used in the study (2.63 log copies/mL), and we regret our failure to express the values below LOD as “
BCSnob 09/25/20 11:26am Around the Campfire
RE: 2019–20 CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC POSTINGS

I agree with the Chief Science officer that it looks like sloppy science to me. Please provide peer reviewed published reports indicating the false positive rates for the RT-PCR tests. In other words fact check what someone says even when it supports your preconceived bias (which is what science does). This is no different than accepting vape particles are much bigger than droplets that carry viruses (which is incorrect) since it supports what you want to be the truth.
BCSnob 09/25/20 11:02am Around the Campfire
RE: 2019–20 CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC POSTINGS

For what it is worth, the mutation rates for influenza, measles, and mumps are all about the same. The mutation rate clearly does not correlate with how long a vaccine will be effective for the circulating virus strain. For measles and mumps the vaccines (or infection) provide lifetime immunity. For the influenza viruses, the immunity is much shorter because the mutations were in functionally relative locations.
BCSnob 09/25/20 10:10am Around the Campfire
RE: 2019–20 CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC POSTINGS

Here is a peer review study about gaiters from Duke This is a peer review study that shows gaiters don't even work but are in fact, according to this peer review study more dangerous to wear. I choose to believe peer review studies like this one. Instead of reading what a Wash Post reporter wrote about this study let’s go read what the Duke researchers published. Low-cost measurement of face mask efficacy for filtering expelled droplets during speech This is a good quote showing the effectiveness of some cloth masks and a surgical mask at blocking emitted droplets from speech. In the study (unlike the video) the performance of each mask was compared to not wearing a mask. Unlike the video where the vapor was blown out; the study measured droplets emitted during speech. For the control trial (green curve), the five distinct peaks correspond to the five repetitions of the operator speaking. In the case of speaking through a mask, there is a physical barrier, which results in a reduction of transmitted droplets and a significant delay between speaking and detecting particles. In effect, the mask acts as a temporal low-pass filter, smoothens the droplet rate over time, and reduces the overall transmission. For the bandana (red curve), the droplet rate is merely reduced by a factor of 2, and the repetitions of the speech are still noticeable. The effect of the cotton mask (orange curve) is much stronger. The speech pattern is no longer recognizable, and most of the droplets, compared to the control trial, are removed. The curve for the surgical mask is not visible on this scale. This is a link to figures of their data comparing the performance of the masks tested relative to no mask. Data Figure; there is a picture in the linked article showing all the masks tested.
BCSnob 09/24/20 09:52am Around the Campfire
RE: 2019–20 CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC POSTINGS

No MD, just a lowly PhD working as a research scientist at a biotech company that is part of Operation Warp Speed (making covid antibody tests being recommended by NIAID for the phase III vaccine trials). What’s your expertise to be able to judge the non peer reviewed YT video? I am aware of the differences in effectiveness of face coverings. If you’d bother reading the linked articles to assessed effectiveness you’ll find this has been discussed. I’m also aware that masks with exhaust valves offer little to no protection to those around the wearer. My employer’s mask policy is based upon the most up to date info on effectiveness of masks which is why we are not allowed to use gaiters, bandannas, and masks with exhaust valves.
BCSnob 09/24/20 07:36am Around the Campfire
RE: 2019–20 CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC POSTINGS

Someone could make a analogous video on how seat belts don’t work; showing the injuries to belt wearers after accidents. It doesn’t prove seat belt use (or mask use) doesn’t reduce injuries and deaths. It only demonstrates that safety devices and safety measures are not binary in effectiveness. What the vape/mask video didn’t have was the control; how much vapor would be blown at the camera when not wearing a mask (analogous to talking face to face with and without a mask).
BCSnob 09/24/20 07:01am Around the Campfire
RE: 2019–20 CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC POSTINGS

This video shows how a mask handles a vape aerosol (many, many, many, many magnitudes larger than a CV virus or the water vapor it can hitch hike on). I choose to believe this peer reviewed published study on the size of vape aerosol particle size (0.25-0.45 micrometer) over what is said in a YouTube video. Electronic cigarette aerosol particle size distribution measurements This size range is not larger the the droplets that carry exhaled viruses. It doesn’t take much effort to fact check claims. For reference aerosol particles are generally considered to be less than 5 micrometers while exhaled droplets are larger than 5 micrometers. Particle sizes of infectious aerosols: implications for infection control I recommended Google Scholar for finding (or “fact checking”) science information over many other sources including YouTube. The motto on google scholar is “ Stand on the shoulders of giants”.
BCSnob 09/24/20 05:06am Around the Campfire
RE: 2019–20 CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC POSTINGS

If the AstraZeneca phase 3 vaccine trial in the USA was put on hold, why does the NIH page for this trial list: Recruitment Status : Not yet recruiting First Posted : August 18, 2020 Last Update Posted : August 18, 2020 ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04516746
BCSnob 09/23/20 01:00pm Around the Campfire
RE: 2019–20 CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC POSTINGS

This article indicates surgical masks protect against the spread covid in aerosols. Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks Nature Medicine volume 26, pages676–680(2020) Abstract We identified seasonal human coronaviruses, influenza viruses and rhinoviruses in exhaled breath and coughs of children and adults with acute respiratory illness. Surgical face masks significantly reduced detection of influenza virus RNA in respiratory droplets and coronavirus RNA in aerosols, with a trend toward reduced detection of coronavirus RNA in respiratory droplets. Our results indicate that surgical face masks could prevent transmission of human coronaviruses and influenza viruses from symptomatic individuals. This pre-print posted today has a good discussion on the effectiveness of face masks in decreasing the spread of covid (be it by filtering exhaled virus or filtering inhaled virus. The studies on the effectiveness of facemasks were for covid, be it transmitted by droplets or in aerosols. Many studies have reported that facial masks substantially reduce the infection risk, which applies to disposable surgical masks as well as reusable cloth masks (Chu et al., 2020; Esposito et al., 2020; Fischer et al., 2020; Howard et al., 2020; Leung et al., 2020; MacIntyre and Chughtai, 2020). Mueller et al. (2020) found that, when worn as designed, surgical and cloth masks have filtration efficiencies of 53–75% and 28–90%, respectively. Mask wearing works in two ways, by preventing infected subjects from spreading droplets and aerosols, and by limiting exposure through inhalation. Verma et al. (2020) report that homemade masks with multiple fabric layers effectively reduce droplet dispersal. Drewnick et al. (2020) investigated many materials, and measured a large range of filtration efficiencies, from about 10% to 100%. Materials with small leak areas, e.g. 1–2%, were shown to have substantially reduced efficiency. By the stacking of a number of fabric layers, homemade masks appeared to achieve good filtration efficiencies of about 50 80% for 0.5–10 ?m particles, and 30–60% for 30–250 nm particles. These results agree with Shakya et al. (2017), and confirm that surgical masks are generally more efficient than homemade cloth products (Davies et al., 2013). The filtering efficiency of medical and non-medical masks is typically exceeded by N95 (filter 95% of the particles), FFP2 (filter ?94%) and FFP3 (?99%) respirators, which are recommended for health-care workers (Chu et al. 2020; Howard et at., 2020). The universal, public wearing of masks (not respirators) by at least 80% of the population was shown to be particularly effective in reducing the spreading of COVID-19 (De Kai et al., 2020). The effectiveness of using face masks by the general population obviously increases with their filter efficiency, but even if it is low, the benefits are apparent (Worby and Chang, 2020). By studying policies in different countries, De Kai et al. (2020) found a strong correlation between mask wearing and both daily and peak growth reduction of COVID-19, with successful application in countries such as China, South Korea and Japan, where this practice is ubiquitous. Surgical masks are relatively efficient in this respect, but also home-made cloth masks can contribute, albeit with lower efficiency (Fischer et al., 2020). Drewnick et al. (2020) reported that avoiding leaks in masks is particularly important to have good overall efficacy. When masks with a sufficient number of layers of good material (especially fluffy textiles) and with proper fit are used, there could be substantial inhalation protection. The masks reduce SARS-CoV-2 emissions in both droplets and aerosol particles. At emission, the particles are initially wet (small droplets), likely remaining so under the mask. Source: Aerosol transmission of COVID-19 and infection risk in indoor environments doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.09.22.20199489
BCSnob 09/22/20 11:10am Around the Campfire
RE: 2019–20 CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC POSTINGS

No really good way to tell why Fauci flip flopped on the mask issue either? Sure there is; over months science increased our understanding of how this virus spreads and then there were updates to recommended mask use. I'm sorry if this information is raining on your storyline; have some more cool-aid and you'll feel better.
BCSnob 09/22/20 10:45am Around the Campfire
RE: 2019–20 CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC POSTINGS

Here is another study showing there has been no difference in viral loads between three age groups: less than 5 years, 5-17 years, and older than 17 years. The study examined data from 5,544 positive covid tests in patients from CA tested in two different labs.Laboratory A serves the UC San Francisco health care system, as well as local clinics and also 42 provides tests to the county health departments in 26 California counties. Laboratory B serves 43 principally the UC Davis health care system and partner clinics/hospitals centered in Sacramento, CA. The viral loads were determined in all the samples. and no significant difference in load was found between these age groups. The youngest did not have a higher viral load than the other age groups. Source: Nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV2 viral loads in young children do not differ significantly from those in older children and adults doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.09.17.20192245
BCSnob 09/22/20 10:33am Around the Campfire
RE: 2019–20 CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC POSTINGS

Missteps by the scientists or editorial changes imposed by political appointees? No way for the public to know for certain.
BCSnob 09/21/20 05:07pm Around the Campfire
RE: 2019–20 CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC POSTINGS

I think this is what you’re looking for...., A mechanistic model and therapeutic interventions for COVID-19 involving a RAS-mediated bradykinin storm DOI: 10.7554/eLife.59177
BCSnob 09/21/20 01:27pm Around the Campfire
RE: 2019–20 CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC POSTINGS

Here is another study on Hydroxychloroquine; this one shows no benefit in taking Hydroxychloroquine prophylactical to prevent COVID-19. This one was posted as a pre-print today. Hydroxychloroquine as pre-exposure prophylaxis for COVID-19 in healthcare workers: a randomized trial doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.09.18.20197327 Abstract Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a rapidly emerging virus causing the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic with no known effective prophylaxis. We investigated whether hydroxychloroquine could prevent SARS CoV-2 in healthcare workers at high-risk of exposure. Methods: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of healthcare workers with ongoing exposure to persons with Covid-19, including those working in emergency departments, intensive care units, Covid-19 hospital wards, and first responders. Participants across the United States and in the Canadian province of Manitoba were randomized to hydroxychloroquine 400mg once weekly or twice weekly for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was confirmed or probable Covid-19-compatible illness. We measured hydroxychloroquine whole blood concentrations. Results: We enrolled 1483 healthcare workers, of which 79% reported performing aerosol-generating procedures. The incidence of Covid-19 (laboratory-confirmed or symptomatic compatible illness) was 0.27 events per person-year with once-weekly and 0.28 events per person-year with twice-weekly hydroxychloroquine compared with 0.38 events per person-year with placebo. For once weekly hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis, the hazard ratio was 0.72 (95%CI 0.44 to 1.16; P=0.18) and for twice weekly was 0.74 (95%CI 0.46 to 1.19; P=0.22) as compared with placebo. Median hydroxychloroquine concentrations in whole blood were 98 ng/mL (IQR, 82-120) with once-weekly and 200 ng/mL (IQR, 159-258) with twice-weekly dosing. Hydroxychloroquine concentrations did not differ between participants who developed Covid-19 (154 ng/mL) versus participants without Covid-19 (133 ng/mL; P=0.08). Conclusions: Pre-exposure prophylaxis with hydroxychloroquine once or twice weekly did not significantly reduce laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 or Covid-19-compatible illness among healthcare workers.
BCSnob 09/21/20 12:58pm Around the Campfire
RE: 2019–20 CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC POSTINGS

One small phase II study of convalescent plasma should not be considered the final answer on effectiveness. It does raise concerns.
BCSnob 09/21/20 10:41am Around the Campfire
RE: 2019–20 CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC POSTINGS

So much time and effort expended on this drug! Mortality outcomes with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in COVID-19: an international collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.09.16.20194571 Abstract Background: Substantial COVID-19 research investment has been allocated to randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, which currently face recruitment challenges or early discontinuation. We aimed to estimate the effects of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine on survival in COVID-19 from all currently available RCT evidence, published and unpublished. Methods: Rapid meta-analysis of ongoing, completed, or discontinued RCTs on hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine treatment for any COVID-19 patients (protocol: https://osf.io/QESV4/). We systematically identified published and unpublished RCTs by September 14, 2020 (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, PubMed, Cochrane COVID-19 registry). All-cause mortality was extracted (publications/preprints) or requested from investigators and combined in random-effects meta-analyses, calculating odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), separately for hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine. Prespecified subgroup analyses included patient setting, diagnostic confirmation, control type, and publication status. Results: Sixty-two trials were potentially eligible. We included 16 unpublished trials (1596 patients) and 10 publications/preprints (6317 patients). The combined summary OR on all-cause mortality for hydroxychloroquine was 1.08 (95%CI: 0.99, 1.18; I-square=0%; 24 trials; 7659 patients) and for chloroquine 1.77 (95%CI: 0.15, 21.13, I-square=0%; 4 trials; 307 patients). We identified no subgroup effects. Conclusions: We found no benefit of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine on the survival of COVID-19 patients. For hydroxychloroquine, the confidence interval is compatible with increased mortality (OR 1.18) or negligibly reduced mortality (OR 0.99). Findings have unclear generalizability to outpatients, children, pregnant women, and people with comorbidities. Summary: 16 unpublished trials (1596 patients) and 10 publications/preprints (6317 patients) no benefit of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine on the survival of COVID-19 patients For hydroxychloroquine, the confidence interval is compatible with increased mortality (OR 1.18) or negligibly reduced mortality (OR 0.99).
BCSnob 09/21/20 07:49am Around the Campfire
RE: 2019–20 CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC POSTINGS

Early Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Convalescent Plasma in Patients Admitted for COVID-19: A Randomized Phase II Clinical Trial doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.09.17.20196212 Abstract Background: Convalescent plasma (CP), despite limited evidence on its efficacy, is being widely used as a compassionate therapy for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of early CP therapy in COVID-19 progression. Methods: Open-label, single-center, randomized clinical trial performed in an academic center in Santiago, Chile from May 10, 2020, to July 18, 2020, with final follow-up August 17, 2020. The trial included patients hospitalized within the first 7 days of COVID-19 symptoms onset, presenting risk factors for illness progression and not on mechanical ventilation. The intervention consisted in immediate CP (early plasma group) versus no CP unless developing pre-specified criteria of deterioration (deferred plasma group). Additional standard treatment was allowed in both arms. The primary outcome was a composite of mechanical ventilation, hospitalization for >14 days or death. Key secondary outcomes included: time to respiratory failure, days of mechanical ventilation, hospital length-of-stay, mortality at 30 days, and SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR clearance rate. Results: Of 58 randomized patients (mean age, 65.8 years, 50% male), 57 (98.3%) completed the trial. A total of 13 (43.3%) participants from the deferred group received plasma based on clinical aggravation. We found no benefit in the primary outcome (32.1% vs 33.3%, OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.32-2.84, p>0.99) in the early versus deferred CP group. In-hospital mortality rate was 17.9% vs 6.7% (OR 3.04, 95% CI 0.54-17.2, p=0.25), mechanical ventilation 17.9% vs 6.7% (OR 3.04, 95% CI 0.54-17.2, p=0.25), and prolonged hospitalization 21.4% vs 30% (OR 0.64, 95%CI, 0.19-2.1, p=0.55) in early versus deferred CP group, respectively. Viral clearance rate on day 3 (26% vs 8%, p=0.20) and day 7 (38% vs 19%, p=0.37) did not differ between groups. Two patients experienced serious adverse events within 6 or less hours after plasma transfusion. Conclusion: Immediate addition of CP therapy in early stages of COVID-19 -compared to its use only in case of patient deterioration- did not confer benefits in mortality, length of hospitalization or mechanical ventilation requirement. Convalescent plasma (plasma with SARS-Cov-2 antibodies from recovered patients) was not found to be a cure for the infection.
BCSnob 09/21/20 07:36am Around the Campfire
RE: 2019–20 CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC POSTINGS

I haven't read and comprehended this study fully. What the authors are saying is our perception of which age groups are at greater risk of infection is highly skewed by the level of testing performed on people in these age groups. After adjusting for the level of testing, they find: These results, which we were able to partially validate using seroprevalence data from individuals older than 18 years of age, suggest that the high rates of reported COVID-19 in older adults are most likely due to increased testing due to increased disease severity (21); in fact, older adults may be at less risk of infection than younger individuals, possibly due to greater adherence with social distancing, masking and other protective behaviors (22). By contrast, adults aged 20-29 are at markedly higher risk of infection after adjustment for decreased testing frequency; this again likely reflects risk perceptions and lack of adherence to preventive measures (22), while adolescents and teens had test-adjusted estimates of risk similar to those in the population as a whole. The finding that children 10 and older are infected at rates similar to the population as a whole, after adjustment for testing frequency, is consistent with expectations for a pandemic disease, in which high attack rates reflect initial universal susceptibility to disease. Source: COVID-19 Case-Age Distribution: Correction for Differential Testing by Age This analysis is for rates of infection not severity of the infection.
BCSnob 09/18/20 02:20pm Around the Campfire
Sort by:    Search within results:
Page of 17  
Next


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

Adjust text size:




© 2020 CWI, Inc. © 2020 Good Sam Enterprises, LLC. All Rights Reserved.