It's Throwback Thursday's thread of sarcasm and witty repartee

[SlinkyRedfoot]

common colds are not coronaviruses, are they?

Common Human Coronaviruses | CDC

Provides overview of the Common Human Coronavirus, including symptoms, transmission, prevention of viral respiratory infections, treatment, and testing.

www.cdc.gov

I listened to an interview with Dr David Katz and he was saying that they've found that some blood that was banked before the COVID19 outbreak is showing a natural resistance to COVID19 -- not immunity, but resistance -- and they were speculating that it could be due to the donor having had a CCC (common cold coronavirus) in the past.

 

[Fish]

I found this snippet which describes what I've been trying to say.


Although I’m currently a practicing attorney, in a prior career I was a researcher and a published statistical data analyst with the Washington University School of Medicine. I have a master’s degree in public health. And I have grave concerns about the numbers that the State of Illinois (and other states) are using to make decisions about closing down large facets of our economy. The so-called “positivity rate” doesn’t tell us the full story about what is happening in the community with this disease.

As a quick example, if 100 people are tested for COVID-19 right now, it is extremely likely that they are being tested because they are sick, or because they have recently been in close contact with someone who has tested positive. If 6 of those people test positive (a 6% “positivity rate”) or 8 test positive, (an 8% “positivity rate”), does that tell us what the rate of positive tests are in the community? No. Because it is very possible – even probable – that the folks being tested are more likely to have a positive test result. Again, they may have felt sick or have been in close proximity to someone who is. So of course the percent with a positive result can be higher than in the general population. In science, this is called “selection bias,” or “ascertainment bias.” More thorough definitions of selection and ascertainment bias can be found online. One researcher described exactly this problem in a very recently-published article. “A crude measure of population prevalence [of COVID-19] is the fraction of positive tests at any given date. However, this is subject to large ascertainment bias since tests are typically only ordered from symptomatic cases, whereas a large proportion of infected might show little to no symptoms…”

 

[Sportsguy]

Woke up with a sore throat today. Hopefully the rain has something to do with it.

 

[stakesarehigh]

I wouldn't say there was an issue, but there is a queue of approvals and, of course, drug manufacturers prefer the slow process to not change. You won't see the big names lobbying since they already do everything they can to minimize generics.

an NDA needs clinical trials, which we know several are already in phase 3.

I think stability testing can slow things down too, but there are enough big brains out there to figure out a safe way to accelerate that process. Perhaps even allow it to continue while the drugs are being used.

Let me be clear, that I am not part of the FDA nor do I work in regulatory capacity. But I've been around the manufacturing process for 2 decades, and attend all of that mandatory training and listen in to some of these types of meetings.



I think approvals take longer... we already had a lot of this worked out before the virus was discovered.

Big pharma:. Pandemic crippling our nation...


"Hey guys I know thousands are dying but how can we slow this down so we can make a few more bucks"

 

[kobesgame]

But positivity rate is skewed by asymptomatics.

For sure. You have to assume an even higher percentage of positives. But the positivity rate of tests taken is still pretty important because you can use that data to extrapolate to the general population.

 

[Deep Dish Pizza Goat]

I found this snippet which describes what I've been trying to say.


Although I’m currently a practicing attorney, in a prior career I was a researcher and a published statistical data analyst with the Washington University School of Medicine. I have a master’s degree in public health. And I have grave concerns about the numbers that the State of Illinois (and other states) are using to make decisions about closing down large facets of our economy. The so-called “positivity rate” doesn’t tell us the full story about what is happening in the community with this disease.

As a quick example, if 100 people are tested for COVID-19 right now, it is extremely likely that they are being tested because they are sick, or because they have recently been in close contact with someone who has tested positive. If 6 of those people test positive (a 6% “positivity rate”) or 8 test positive, (an 8% “positivity rate”), does that tell us what the rate of positive tests are in the community? No. Because it is very possible – even probable – that the folks being tested are more likely to have a positive test result. Again, they may have felt sick or have been in close proximity to someone who is. So of course the percent with a positive result can be higher than in the general population. In science, this is called “selection bias,” or “ascertainment bias.” More thorough definitions of selection and ascertainment bias can be found online. One researcher described exactly this problem in a very recently-published article. “A crude measure of population prevalence [of COVID-19] is the fraction of positive tests at any given date. However, this is subject to large ascertainment bias since tests are typically only ordered from symptomatic cases, whereas a large proportion of infected might show little to no symptoms…”

Exactly. Like I said, asymptomatic people are sort of fudging the numbers all around. They aren't getting recorded because they have no reason to get tested, but they are infecting.

 

[ill]

I listened to an interview with Dr David Katz and he was saying that they've found that some blood that was banked before the COVID19 outbreak is showing a natural resistance to COVID19 -- not immunity, but resistance -- and they were speculating that it could be due to the donor having had a CCC (common cold coronavirus) in the past.

I can see where if you had SARS or one of the other Coronaviruses, you may have some sort of immunity. I have a friend who had SARS at one point and her boyfriend had COVID but did not give it to her.

but to say "common cold coronavirus" is not a correct term.

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

At least in Mr. Kobe's opinion, the 3 most important numbers are positivity rate, hospitalizations, and deaths.

He obviously has more knowledge than I do about this, so I'm glad my ideas line up there. I'd rank positivity 3rd of those, though, mostly because there's so many questions about the testing and reporting, including the accuracy of the tests themselves.

 

[Deep Dish Pizza Goat]

He obviously has more knowledge than I do about this, so I'm glad my ideas line up there. I'd rank positivity 3rd of those, though, mostly because there's so many questions about the testing and reporting, including the accuracy of the tests themselves.

I think all three elements COMBINED are important from an analytics point of view. All three independently are meh. The complete wild card of mystery infectors is what makes the numbers game and making "life" decisions based on numbers so wonky.

 

[Bender]

well guess it's time to make the cookies, looks like you guys are up to some fun stuff today, enjoy.

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

ok so it is not a common cold, it just has symptoms similar to a common cold.

Yes. There are common coronaviruses that have the exact same symptoms as a common cold, but are, in fact, common coronaviruses, not common colds, they just do the exact same thing.

On behalf of the thread, I would like to thank you for pointing out such an important distinction.

 

[ill]

I think all three elements COMBINED are important from an analytics point of view. All three independently are meh. The complete wild card of mystery infectors is what makes the numbers game and making "life" decisions based on numbers so wonky.

disagree.

 

[ill]

Yes. There are common coronaviruses that have the exact same symptoms as a common cold, but are, in fact, common coronaviruses, not common colds, they just do the exact same thing.

On behalf of the thread, I would like to thank you for pointing out such an important distinction.

right, but they are not common colds.

and you are welcome.

make sure Katie sees it because she has me on ignore.

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

I can see where if you had SARS or one of the other Coronaviruses, you may have some sort of immunity. I have a friend who had SARS at one point and her boyfriend had COVID but did not give it to her.

but to say "common cold coronavirus" is not a correct term.

Well, you can take that up with Dr David Katz. Make sure you when you address it, you tell him about your tennis playing so that he knows you're qualified.

 

[kobesgame]

He obviously has more knowledge than I do about this, so I'm glad my ideas line up there. I'd rank positivity 3rd of those, though, mostly because there's so many questions about the testing and reporting, including the accuracy of the tests themselves.

Positivity rate is absolutely 3rd of those 3 things in his opinion. The total numbers of positives and total number of tests don't factor much into the decisions they make.

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

and at the moment, we don't have any other coronaviruses floating around.

You know this how?

 

[Deep Dish Pizza Goat]

Well, you can take that up with Dr David Katz. Make sure you when you address it, you tell him about your tennis playing so that he knows you're qualified.

lol tennis playing...should I unblock ill?

If there's someone I want to listen to covid 19 about, it's a dude who gets randomly tested for no reason, travels for social purposes, plays rec sports without masks and hangs out with random broads who have gotten covid...while posting about how we should all do the exact opposite on message boards.

 

[stakesarehigh]

Yes. There are common coronaviruses that have the exact same symptoms as a common cold, but are, in fact, common coronaviruses, not common colds, they just do the exact same thing.

On behalf of the thread, I would like to thank you for pointing out such an important distinction.

Can we get a ruling on witty repartee

 

[ill]

You know this how?

sorry I deleted that because I couldn't definitively say that.

 

[ill]

Well, you can take that up with Dr David Katz. Make sure you when you address it, you tell him about your tennis playing so that he knows you're qualified.

Dr Katz?