Post-infection PPE and service

[legg]

If recovered Covid19 persons have antibodies, then their service
in working with the newly-infected-only would not need to involve
the use of PPE.

Facilities with infected/recovered-only person access could be
of considerable use.

Intentional infection/care and recovery of personnel with critical
care expertise should be considered at the earliest date.

RL

 

[legg]

On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 09:25:46 -0400, Bob Engelhardt
<BobEngelhardt@comcast.net> wrote:

On 3/26/2020 9:06 AM, legg wrote:
If recovered Covid19 persons have antibodies, then their service
in working with the newly-infected-only would not need to involve
the use of PPE.

Facilities with infected/recovered-only person access could be
of considerable use.

Intentional infection/care and recovery of personnel with critical
care expertise should be considered at the earliest date.

RL


Not so fast: it's not yet clear that recovered victims have immunity.
From CDC:

QUOTE:
Q: Can people who recover from COVID-19 be infected again?

A: The immune response to COVID-19 is not yet understood. Patients with
MERS-CoV infection are unlikely to be re-infected shortly after they
recover, but it is not yet known whether similar immune protection will
be observed for patients with COVID-19.
UN-QUOTE

Well, the antibody test is quick and cheap and available.

Immunity? Ask the Chinese.

RL

 

[Winfield Hill]

legg wrote...

If recovered Covid19 persons have antibodies, then
their service in working with the newly-infected-only
would not need to involve the use of PPE.

Facilities with infected/recovered-only person access
could be of considerable use.

Intentional infection/care and recovery of personnel
with critical care expertise should be considered
at the earliest date.

Yes, if we can't get herd immunity for most of the
population, we can at least take advantage of what
we have. But first, we need to establish your "if".


--
Thanks,
- Win

 

[Bob Engelhardt]

On 3/26/2020 9:06 AM, legg wrote:

If recovered Covid19 persons have antibodies, then their service
in working with the newly-infected-only would not need to involve
the use of PPE.

Facilities with infected/recovered-only person access could be
of considerable use.

Intentional infection/care and recovery of personnel with critical
care expertise should be considered at the earliest date.

RL

Not so fast: it's not yet clear that recovered victims have immunity.
From CDC:

QUOTE:
Q: Can people who recover from COVID-19 be infected again?

A: The immune response to COVID-19 is not yet understood. Patients with
MERS-CoV infection are unlikely to be re-infected shortly after they
recover, but it is not yet known whether similar immune protection will
be observed for patients with COVID-19.
UN-QUOTE

 

legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote in
news:hs9p7f5tgndqo7fn92anqt14481ij6l9m5@4ax.com:

If recovered Covid19 persons have antibodies, then their service
in working with the newly-infected-only would not need to involve
the use of PPE.

Facilities with infected/recovered-only person access could be
of considerable use.

Excellent idea. ONLY if it can be proven that they are no longer
aspirating viral aeresols when they respire.

Intentional infection/care and recovery of personnel with critical
care expertise should be considered at the earliest date.

Well, once they have an antibody based vaccine, sure.

The funny thing I have noticed is that after 35 years, folks have
finally figured out how to go past me on my bike at a proper
distance. Sad that it took a deadly virus and 'social distancing
orders' for them to actually follow the existing road laws. Sad more
so that they will revert at some point soon, to sleezing by closer to
me than to the damned lane divider on their left in deference to
existing road laws. Sadder still that I cannot do anything about
their recklessness. I wish I could pack a sidearm and do the world a
favor by cleaning up the gene pool by removing these stupid plow
through bastards from it.

 

[legg]

On 26 Mar 2020 06:06:21 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com>
wrote:

legg wrote...

If recovered Covid19 persons have antibodies, then
their service in working with the newly-infected-only
would not need to involve the use of PPE.

Facilities with infected/recovered-only person access
could be of considerable use.

Intentional infection/care and recovery of personnel
with critical care expertise should be considered
at the earliest date.

Yes, if we can't get herd immunity for most of the
population, we can at least take advantage of what
we have. But first, we need to establish your "if".

Yeh, the 'if'.

I can hustle bed pans with the best of them, and
change a light bulb (while eatin' a pickle sandwich).

Sitting around gets lame PDQ.

RL

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, March 27, 2020 at 12:00:58 AM UTC+11, legg wrote:

If recovered Covid19 persons have antibodies, then their service
in working with the newly-infected-only would not need to involve
the use of PPE.

Facilities with infected/recovered-only person access could be
of considerable use.

Intentional infection/care and recovery of personnel with critical
care expertise should be considered at the earliest date.

A somewhat murderous idea. How many are you willing to see die in pursuit of immunity?

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[legg]

On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 06:54:43 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Friday, March 27, 2020 at 12:00:58 AM UTC+11, legg wrote:
If recovered Covid19 persons have antibodies, then their service
in working with the newly-infected-only would not need to involve
the use of PPE.

Facilities with infected/recovered-only person access could be
of considerable use.

Intentional infection/care and recovery of personnel with critical
care expertise should be considered at the earliest date.

A somewhat murderous idea. How many are you willing to see die in pursuit of immunity?

Obviously, intentional infections have to be voluntary. I don't
think you'll have a shortage of volunteers, provided that antibodies
are demonstrated/documented to be effective in the short term.

The problem would be having the right skills involved, before
overcrowding prevents a safe exercise.

You wouldn't want later dedicated quarantine sites, starved of
resources, to develop into who knows what. The intent is to offer
safe and effective quarantine for detected cases, without PPE.

RL

 

On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 09:06:06 -0400, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:

If recovered Covid19 persons have antibodies, then their service
in working with the newly-infected-only would not need to involve
the use of PPE.

Facilities with infected/recovered-only person access could be
of considerable use.

Intentional infection/care and recovery of personnel with critical
care expertise should be considered at the earliest date.

RL

People who are known to have had the virus probably had a bad case, so
may not be up to hard work, like in an ICU.

When we get antibody tests, we can find the people who got over mild
or asymptomatic infections. Test them for active infections, then put
them to work in high-risk places.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
"Bunter", he said, "I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason"

 

On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 09:39:02 -0400, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:

On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 09:25:46 -0400, Bob Engelhardt
BobEngelhardt@comcast.net> wrote:

On 3/26/2020 9:06 AM, legg wrote:
If recovered Covid19 persons have antibodies, then their service
in working with the newly-infected-only would not need to involve
the use of PPE.

Facilities with infected/recovered-only person access could be
of considerable use.

Intentional infection/care and recovery of personnel with critical
care expertise should be considered at the earliest date.

RL


Not so fast: it's not yet clear that recovered victims have immunity.
From CDC:

QUOTE:
Q: Can people who recover from COVID-19 be infected again?

A: The immune response to COVID-19 is not yet understood. Patients with
MERS-CoV infection are unlikely to be re-infected shortly after they
recover, but it is not yet known whether similar immune protection will
be observed for patients with COVID-19.
UN-QUOTE

Well, the antibody test is quick and cheap and available.

Apparently not yet. Soon maybe.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
"Bunter", he said, "I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason"

 

[legg]

On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 13:59:47 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote in
news:hs9p7f5tgndqo7fn92anqt14481ij6l9m5@4ax.com:

If recovered Covid19 persons have antibodies, then their service
in working with the newly-infected-only would not need to involve
the use of PPE.

Facilities with infected/recovered-only person access could be
of considerable use.

Excellent idea. ONLY if it can be proven that they are no longer
aspirating viral aeresols when they respire.

Intentional infection/care and recovery of personnel with critical
care expertise should be considered at the earliest date.

Well, once they have an antibody based vaccine, sure.

The funny thing I have noticed is that after 35 years, folks have
finally figured out how to go past me on my bike at a proper
distance. Sad that it took a deadly virus and 'social distancing
orders' for them to actually follow the existing road laws. Sad more
so that they will revert at some point soon, to sleezing by closer to
me than to the damned lane divider on their left in deference to
existing road laws. Sadder still that I cannot do anything about
their recklessness. I wish I could pack a sidearm and do the world a
favor by cleaning up the gene pool by removing these stupid plow
through bastards from it.

The roads are less crowded and there's a different 'gene pool'
behind the wheel - but that's just temporary.

This is a new thread, please.

RL

 

[Dave Platt]

In article <r5i9cd01lf6@drn.newsguy.com>,
Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com> wrote:

If recovered Covid19 persons have antibodies, then
their service in working with the newly-infected-only
would not need to involve the use of PPE.

Facilities with infected/recovered-only person access
could be of considerable use.

Intentional infection/care and recovery of personnel
with critical care expertise should be considered
at the earliest date.

Yes, if we can't get herd immunity for most of the
population, we can at least take advantage of what
we have. But first, we need to establish your "if".

The other (and very much more questionable) "if" is "... and if we can
ensure that the intentionally-infected personnel will actually
survive, and not suffer permanent damage." We are a _very_ long way
from that.

Otherwise... well, consider the scenario in which someone
intentionally infects a health-care provider. Said health-care
provider contracts COVID-19, develops severe pneumonia, and (despite
the best care we can give) dies.

How is the action of the "intentional infector" different from
premeditated homicide? How would doing this to a group of people be
different than mass murder? Why should said "intentional infector" not
be criminally charged?

Now, I'm all for the medical system taking best advantage of the
services of those health-care providers who have already acquired
COVID-19 and recovered. That only makes good sense. There are going
to be a lot of them and they'll be badly needed.

It also makes good sense to prioritize giving best-available medical
support to health-care providers who need it. Send them to the head
of the line. If it's a choice between putting an ER doctor onto a
ventilator for a few days, or putting _me_ onto the same ventilator
for the same few days... give it to the doctor.

But _deliberately_ infecting health-care providers, just so that some
percentage of them can eventually return to service with (presumed)
immunity, knowing that a bunch of them will (with great statistical
certainty) die as a result? I don't think so.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, March 27, 2020 at 2:29:12 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 09:06:06 -0400, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:

If recovered Covid19 persons have antibodies, then their service
in working with the newly-infected-only would not need to involve
the use of PPE.

Facilities with infected/recovered-only person access could be
of considerable use.

Intentional infection/care and recovery of personnel with critical
care expertise should be considered at the earliest date.

People who are known to have had the virus probably had a bad case, so
may not be up to hard work, like in an ICU.

About 20% of recognised Covid-19 cases are serious or critical.

The 80% who have a mild case shouldn't have any residual problems.

When we get antibody tests, we can find the people who got over mild
or asymptomatic infections. Test them for active infections, then put
them to work in high-risk places.

You don't know how many of them there might be - your fantasies about an imaginary mild version of the disease that might have circulated through the US a month before the regular virus are particularly stupid, even for you.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[George Herold]

On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 9:00:58 AM UTC-4, legg wrote:

If recovered Covid19 persons have antibodies, then their service
in working with the newly-infected-only would not need to involve
the use of PPE.

Facilities with infected/recovered-only person access could be
of considerable use.

Intentional infection/care and recovery of personnel with critical
care expertise should be considered at the earliest date.

RL

This makes total sense to me. I only wanted to add that most
viruses have a dose response, so if you are exposed to a small
amount of virus in some controlled way the chances of a 'bad/big'
response are reduced.

George H.

 

On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 11:32:24 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 09:39:02 -0400, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:

On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 09:25:46 -0400, Bob Engelhardt
BobEngelhardt@comcast.net> wrote:

On 3/26/2020 9:06 AM, legg wrote:
If recovered Covid19 persons have antibodies, then their service
in working with the newly-infected-only would not need to involve
the use of PPE.

Facilities with infected/recovered-only person access could be
of considerable use.

Intentional infection/care and recovery of personnel with critical
care expertise should be considered at the earliest date.

RL


Not so fast: it's not yet clear that recovered victims have immunity.
From CDC:

QUOTE:
Q: Can people who recover from COVID-19 be infected again?

A: The immune response to COVID-19 is not yet understood. Patients with
MERS-CoV infection are unlikely to be re-infected shortly after they
recover, but it is not yet known whether similar immune protection will
be observed for patients with COVID-19.
UN-QUOTE

Well, the antibody test is quick and cheap and available.

Apparently not yet. Soon maybe.

Just heard an announcement. In my area there's an antibody test,
reports a) active infection b) recovered from infection, $18,
results in seven minutes.

FDA recommended, FDA-sanctioned (that was nice of them!), but not
FDA approved (that'll take 18 months).

Cheers,
James

 

[George Herold]

On Monday, March 30, 2020 at 3:44:15 PM UTC-4, George Herold wrote:

On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 9:00:58 AM UTC-4, legg wrote:
If recovered Covid19 persons have antibodies, then their service
in working with the newly-infected-only would not need to involve
the use of PPE.

Facilities with infected/recovered-only person access could be
of considerable use.

Intentional infection/care and recovery of personnel with critical
care expertise should be considered at the earliest date.

RL
This makes total sense to me. I only wanted to add that most
viruses have a dose response, so if you are exposed to a small
amount of virus in some controlled way the chances of a 'bad/big'
response are reduced.

George H.

This led me to read about variolation,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variolation

seems like it would be worth a try.

GH

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 09:23:55 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 11:32:24 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 09:39:02 -0400, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:

On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 09:25:46 -0400, Bob Engelhardt
BobEngelhardt@comcast.net> wrote:

On 3/26/2020 9:06 AM, legg wrote:
If recovered Covid19 persons have antibodies, then their service
in working with the newly-infected-only would not need to involve
the use of PPE.

Facilities with infected/recovered-only person access could be
of considerable use.

Intentional infection/care and recovery of personnel with critical
care expertise should be considered at the earliest date.

RL


Not so fast: it's not yet clear that recovered victims have immunity.
From CDC:

QUOTE:
Q: Can people who recover from COVID-19 be infected again?

A: The immune response to COVID-19 is not yet understood. Patients with
MERS-CoV infection are unlikely to be re-infected shortly after they
recover, but it is not yet known whether similar immune protection will
be observed for patients with COVID-19.
UN-QUOTE

Well, the antibody test is quick and cheap and available.

Apparently not yet. Soon maybe.

Just heard an announcement. In my area there's an antibody test,
reports a) active infection b) recovered from infection, $18,
results in seven minutes.

FDA recommended, FDA-sanctioned (that was nice of them!), but not
FDA approved (that'll take 18 months).

Cheers,
James

Got any numbers yet? I'm thinking that testing will still be weighted
towards people with symptoms, who will pay for the test.

It will find people with other colds or allergies that are not C19.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 14:07:20 -0400, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:

On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 10:39:33 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:

On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 09:23:55 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 11:32:24 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 09:39:02 -0400, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:

On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 09:25:46 -0400, Bob Engelhardt
BobEngelhardt@comcast.net> wrote:

On 3/26/2020 9:06 AM, legg wrote:
If recovered Covid19 persons have antibodies, then their service
in working with the newly-infected-only would not need to involve
the use of PPE.

Facilities with infected/recovered-only person access could be
of considerable use.

Intentional infection/care and recovery of personnel with critical
care expertise should be considered at the earliest date.

RL


Not so fast: it's not yet clear that recovered victims have immunity.
From CDC:

QUOTE:
Q: Can people who recover from COVID-19 be infected again?

A: The immune response to COVID-19 is not yet understood. Patients with
MERS-CoV infection are unlikely to be re-infected shortly after they
recover, but it is not yet known whether similar immune protection will
be observed for patients with COVID-19.
UN-QUOTE

Well, the antibody test is quick and cheap and available.

Apparently not yet. Soon maybe.

Just heard an announcement. In my area there's an antibody test,
reports a) active infection b) recovered from infection, $18,
results in seven minutes.

FDA recommended, FDA-sanctioned (that was nice of them!), but not
FDA approved (that'll take 18 months).

Cheers,
James

Got any numbers yet? I'm thinking that testing will still be weighted
towards people with symptoms, who will pay for the test.

It will find people with other colds or allergies that are not C19.

Infected people will not exhibit antibodies until the
recovery stage.

RL

Antibodies don't work when there are no antibodies. That makes sense.
Do both tests.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[legg]

On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 10:39:33 -0700, John Larkin
<jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:

On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 09:23:55 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 11:32:24 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 09:39:02 -0400, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:

On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 09:25:46 -0400, Bob Engelhardt
BobEngelhardt@comcast.net> wrote:

On 3/26/2020 9:06 AM, legg wrote:
If recovered Covid19 persons have antibodies, then their service
in working with the newly-infected-only would not need to involve
the use of PPE.

Facilities with infected/recovered-only person access could be
of considerable use.

Intentional infection/care and recovery of personnel with critical
care expertise should be considered at the earliest date.

RL


Not so fast: it's not yet clear that recovered victims have immunity.
From CDC:

QUOTE:
Q: Can people who recover from COVID-19 be infected again?

A: The immune response to COVID-19 is not yet understood. Patients with
MERS-CoV infection are unlikely to be re-infected shortly after they
recover, but it is not yet known whether similar immune protection will
be observed for patients with COVID-19.
UN-QUOTE

Well, the antibody test is quick and cheap and available.

Apparently not yet. Soon maybe.

Just heard an announcement. In my area there's an antibody test,
reports a) active infection b) recovered from infection, $18,
results in seven minutes.

FDA recommended, FDA-sanctioned (that was nice of them!), but not
FDA approved (that'll take 18 months).

Cheers,
James

Got any numbers yet? I'm thinking that testing will still be weighted
towards people with symptoms, who will pay for the test.

It will find people with other colds or allergies that are not C19.

Infected people will not exhibit antibodies until the
recovery stage.

RL

 

On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 1:39:43 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 09:23:55 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 11:32:24 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 09:39:02 -0400, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:

On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 09:25:46 -0400, Bob Engelhardt
BobEngelhardt@comcast.net> wrote:

On 3/26/2020 9:06 AM, legg wrote:
If recovered Covid19 persons have antibodies, then their service
in working with the newly-infected-only would not need to involve
the use of PPE.

Facilities with infected/recovered-only person access could be
of considerable use.

Intentional infection/care and recovery of personnel with critical
care expertise should be considered at the earliest date.

RL


Not so fast: it's not yet clear that recovered victims have immunity.
From CDC:

QUOTE:
Q: Can people who recover from COVID-19 be infected again?

A: The immune response to COVID-19 is not yet understood. Patients with
MERS-CoV infection are unlikely to be re-infected shortly after they
recover, but it is not yet known whether similar immune protection will
be observed for patients with COVID-19.
UN-QUOTE

Well, the antibody test is quick and cheap and available.

Apparently not yet. Soon maybe.

Just heard an announcement. In my area there's an antibody test,
reports a) active infection b) recovered from infection, $18,
results in seven minutes.

FDA recommended, FDA-sanctioned (that was nice of them!), but not
FDA approved (that'll take 18 months).


Got any numbers yet?

Too soon. It's a brand-new test, thanks be to free-market capitalism.
A drop of blood on the test strip activates three stripes, one each
to indicate, 1) you are currently infected, 2) you have been previously
infected, and 3) the test is operating as expected.

Consulting the web, earlier tests are returning 8% positive (active
infection).

I'm thinking that testing will still be weighted
towards people with symptoms, who will pay for the test.

I think people are generally advised to simply self-isolate for
a couple weeks if they feel unwell, and not seek testing or help
unless they get truly ill.

> It will find people with other colds or allergies that are not C19.

I've had a slight cough since 2016 (collateral damage from taking care
of my dear brother), and a runny nose since the pollens came out.

Today a death-warmed-over zombie-esque shopper decorated my air with a
sample of his lung contents. That'll be interesting.

Cheers,
James Arthur