Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The researchers said their results indicate the development of new variations of the spike in COVID-19 cases was “likely caused by mutations and natural selection besides recombination.”
“These findings strongly support an urgent need for further immediate, comprehensive studies that combine genomic data, epidemiological data, and chart records of the clinical symptoms of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19),” they said.
Researchers cautioned that data examined in the study was still “very limited,” emphasizing that follow-up studies of a larger set of data would be needed to gain a “better understanding” of the evolution and epidemiology of COVID-19.
No mention as to what strains are in Italy, S Korea, or Iran but this is just Chinese research—
Thus the appeal for “larger set of data”
Just like the flu mutates—sometimes more than once a season—this virus might be difficult to have a comprehensive vaccine—
One developed for this year might not work if/when it comes back around...
That was my biggest fear that it would mutate before a vaccine could be manufactured. I was doing some research on the outbreak of SARS in 2003. The CDC has a good time line on their website. It was first discovered in November of 2002. On March 12th of 2003 a global alert was issued from W.H.O. On March 15th the CDC activated its Emergency Operations Center with guidelines following the next day. On March 24th it was discovered that there was 39 suspected cases here in the USA. On March 28th the CDC starts pandemic planning. On April 4th there was 115 cases reported in 29 States and no deaths. By May 6th there was no new cases reported in the United States. The containment had been successful.
What I don't understand is how did we go from total containment in two months in 2003 to continued spread and death here? What happened that was different in 2003 vs today?
More irrelevancy, still no support. Nobody asked anybody about diet, especially that based on red herrings.
That is because once again you cannot absorb a point. I demonstrated how one addresses a point. I did not make a cheap pithy, one line comment. I addressed the data directly when I challenged the claim. It was only when they forced the issue.
Quote:
Why are you asking me to support the efficacy of immunizations when I have made no claims of such as you have? You even gave figures (that you made up?) for the benefit of vaccines. Your claims of course, were just thrown out here without citation but you now want to tout your familiarity with the scientific process? Hardly the source anyone here is looking for.
I made one claim with no citation the first time. You make lots of claims with no citations. You are a hypocrite and a rude one at that.
Here is your statement , which makes technical arguments with no citation, where you, in you interminable sloth, expect others to find support it for you, apparently.
What you found is a sales pitch from a huge company that, among other things, manufactures face masks. In spite of what it says, medical officials say that face masks are only minimally effective against airborne viruses.
Hypocrite.
Quote:
If you had couched your statement as an opinion there would have been no question. At least now we all understand that you are unable to support your claims so you continue your diversionary tactics. You are simply passing off opinion as fact.
Diversionary only to people incapable or too lazy to do their own research .
Quote:
And still not a single word to back up your "statistics" and footnote regarding vitamin D.
Well perhaps if you had not been so addled and helpless you could have lifted a finger about which statistic you had a problem with. One was about the flu shot and the other was vitamin D. Show me where you specified the statistic.
Quote:
Edited to add: I have reviewed the study you linked to regarding your parenthetical remarks on general use of Vitamin D and the conclusion that having a higher concentration of that substance in one's blood may be consistent with certain lower risks. Influenza is not cited. So you have spent much time, supplied irrelevant links and have still done absolutely nothing to provide citations for the statistics you posted but refuse to bolster. One can only conclude they have been constructed of whole cloth.
Well once again you don't notice the details . I did not address that to you. It was not to address any statistical claims about the flu. My entire point form the beginning was the broad spectrum approach that includes vitamin D.
Nonetheless why you could not bother to look into it yourself is mind boggling . If you have a problem with it, ask the BBC to make a retraction. They are far more influential than I am . Yes the data is not influenza specific, not entirely accurate to influenza, but again , 40 is a low number because other research shows as high as 70 need to be treated. The real point beneficial for those who cannot read between the lines is the flu short is heavily promoted while vitamin D supplements are not. Anyway, I sure know which one is more likely to be therapeutic against COVID-19
If this was a problem for you, just ask. I'm always willing to support any factual statement I make to differentiate them from my opinions which are normally identified as such or made clear by the language in the text.
Once again you cannot understand a basic point. I did not ask for the citation. You expected citations. I ignored your comments as worthless because they are. I know how to look up the data on the efficacy of using masks quite independently.
Secondly, you did not ask for a citation. You hypocritically criticized me for not providing them, while not providing them yourself.
Thirdly, as stated, I suggested you make informed comments about the flu vaccine showing evidence you can critique research. You avoided that one and bolted for the vitamin D article posted to the general audience, not posted to back up a statistical claim. Its transparent , but I hope you enjoyed it for your sake.
And the WHO has upgraded the mortality rate to 3.4%
3.4%...
That is certainly not the flu. Again watching far better numbers for the Diamond Princess which should be a more vulnerable demographic. There is the COPD, smoking , UV light etc that I keep speculating on... I would suspect supportive care more but the serious cases are low which do not need support . I see 5% serious and 1% mortality. 212 recovered and climbing as well.
Well the reason for me is a flu shot prevents 1 case out of 40-70 treated depending on the study, Vitamin D supplementation in the winter prevents 1 out of 33 flu cases
plus helps with colds ,plus cancer , plus bone breaks, and who knows what else.
Once again, do you or do you not have a source, citation, link or any other information to support the highlighted statement? Be specific.
Once again, do you or do you not have a source, citation, link or any other information to support the highlighted statement? Be specific.
Once again this was the statistical reference , which I corrected to be generally applicable to respiratory infections at the very bottom of a post directed towards you. You seem incapable for what ever reason.....
The team at Queen Mary University of London (QMUL) looked at respiratory tract infections - which covers a wide range of illnesses from a sniffle to flu to pneumonia.
Overall, the study said one person would be spared infection for every 33 taking vitamin D supplements.
That is more effective than flu vaccination, which needs to treat 40 to prevent one case, although flu is far more serious than the common cold.
And yet once again , when I made the remark, it was not intended for peer review for absolute accuracy , should be clear in a forum like this where comments have the value of research meta data and nothing more..You have been shown to do so yourself repeatedly....
Here you are again today showing your arrogating on display, making inaccurate claims also not cited. My reply proves the point nicely about the quality of your , well, whatever....
Once again this was the statistical reference , which I corrected to be generally applicable to respiratory infections at the very bottom of a post directed towards you. You seem incapable for what ever reason.....
The team at Queen Mary University of London (QMUL) looked at respiratory tract infections - which covers a wide range of illnesses from a sniffle to flu to pneumonia.
Overall, the study said one person would be spared infection for every 33 taking vitamin D supplements.
That is more effective than flu vaccination, which needs to treat 40 to prevent one case, although flu is far more serious than the common cold.
And yet once again , when I made the remark, it was not intended for peer review for absolute accuracy , should be clear in a forum like this where comments have the value of research meta data and nothing more..You have been shown to do so yourself repeatedly....
Here you are again today showing your arrogating on display, making inaccurate claims also not cited. My reply proves the point nicely about the quality of your , well, whatever....
That wasn't so hard now, was it? Here, at last, we have sources to look at and examine. You appear to have gone all in on vitamin D, whether through a pro D mindset or anti-vax stance or some other reason, I prefer to keep a skeptical open mind. I also prefer not to confuse correlation with causation either in contracting an ailment or in healing from it.
There appears to be nothing within the vitamin D study you now cite that allows for seasonal differences in susceptibility to respiratory infections or vitamin D levels. A paper published by the NIH takes a number of studies into consideration before saying this:
4.2. Human Studies on Influenza Prevention by Vitamin D
A survey of the literature data generates some controversies and doubts about the possible role of vitamin D for the prevention of influenza infections. However, there are data obtained in vitro or in vivo which denote the antiviral activity of vitamin D in the case of influenza. Nowadays, the final conclusion is that its significance as an anti-influenza agent remains unresolved, but it does not mean that these considerations are senseless. It is most important to realise that the broad spectrum of vitamin D activity does not exclude such a role.
Some of the following studies do not strictly concern influenza infection, but also the influenza-like respiratory illnesses of respiratory tract infections (RIs) and pneumonia. However, the time period of the studies, i.e., October–March, or the winter months, does not exclude influenza infections, most common in the autumn and winter. According to Cannell et al. [24], if vitamin D is a “seasonal stimulus”, as has already been mentioned in this paper, then vitamin D deficiency should predispose patients to respiratory infections.
In consideration of preemptive dosing to avoid influenza specifically I would prefer the path of a targeted flu vaccine to the shotgun approach of vitamin D noting that even in the study that cautiously concludes a benefit of such vitamin therapy the authors call for further study.
Your stalking of me to find postings to nitpick is a bit bizarre.
Last edited by kokonutty; 03-04-2020 at 10:11 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
