U. of Chicago COVID-19 interactive data visualization tool

On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 11:32:25 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 12:57:05 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 1:10:05 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 7:52:53 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 12:04:00 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 1:54:02 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 1:00:41 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

snip

My point was the rapid antibody test will be unusable towards a large scale retrospective study of the spread of the epidemic, but apparently that was lost on you.

Still is. The conclusion seemed to be based on the idea that antibodies go away with time, when the real problem is that RNA viruses mutate fast enough the antibody to the ancestral virus doesn't react to it's remote descendant,

There have been no such mutations noted, and the various mutations and/or strains that have been identified, using a much larger population than just a single individual, all have the same immutable S-(spike) protein used for cell fusion/infection. All the rapid antibody tests are looking for the IgX's targeting that S-protein.

All the rapid antibody tests may be looking for the spike protein, but natural antibodies aren't that specific, otherwise the 25% of colds caused by corona viruses would be blocked by our own antibodies, and SARs, MERS and Covid-19 wouldn't have infected us.

Some weeks ago a I posted a link to some work on a synthetic vaccine which was supposed to create lots of synthetic spike protein in the blood of the people being vaccinated, so that they'd antibodies that reacted just to the spike protein on the surface of any of the corona viruses - SARS, MERs, Civd-19 and the one that cause 25% of common colds - natural antibodies seem to go for larger targets, and the viruses do mutate enough to change the spacing between the spike proteins, so that natural antibodies don't pick up on different corona viruses.

You still seem confused about the two distinct types of antibody tests: 1) the one type looking for antibodies in the blood that react to a specific antigen, and 2) the type looking for antigens in the blood that react to a specific antibody.

I can't imagine why you think that. I worked on a machine that used monoclonal antibodies to latch onto specific infective agents - the one that got sold to Porton Down got sold with a bunch of disposable sensing blocks that had been loaded with an antibody that latched onto Yersinia pestis (the Black Plague bacterium).

All that may be fine and dandy, but you obviously didn't have to know squat about immunobiology to do whatever engineering you were doing. So your claim to having any kind of credentials is vacuous.

The natural antibodies in the blood latch onto specific bacteria and viruses, and there are well know tests to checked whether you've been infected - that's how the Dutch doctors worked out that my wife's weird symptoms were caused by secondary European Lyme disease (borrelia). My Dutch GP checked me out years later, and I had antibodies to borrelia too, but my immune system seemed to have got rid of the bugs at the primary stage of the infection.

Nothing by way of the second test are even in the process of being introduced, mainly because they're a lot more trouble with raising transgenic animal stock, infecting them and extracting and tagging antibodies. Even you should be able to understand how much more work that is.

Your "second test" looking for antigens in the blood (or saliva or nasal mucus) is an example of what is used to check for the Covid-19 virus.

Wow- you're so out to lunch you won't be back until Christmas! That's the PCR looking for gene sequence (s) in the antigen. Nobody calls that an antibody test, they're called RT-PCR surprisingly enough. And they have developed rapid PCR, see my post about Abbott Labs recent introduction, the 5-minute test, that's going to make them richer than rich.

Monoclonal antibodies are great at locking onto specific antigens - as used in the machine I worked on.

The confusion is clearly all yours.

Monoclonal antibodies just don't drop out of the sky, especially in your day> They were designed from antibodies isolated from people and or animals who survived the disease. Even in this day and with their incredible simulation capability, the monoclonal antibody manufacturers are using survivor anitbodies. I know you're so damned dumb you think they're using the survivor's actual antibody, but it really means they're using the antibody the survivor's immune designed designed, and then going to transgenic mic or some other means to actually mass produce the antibody.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 12:19:27 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 1:15:33 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 11:20:31 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 10:00:41 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 12:12:39 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 1:20:45 PM UTC-7, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 2020-04-06 14:07, Flyguy wrote:
The U. of Chicago has taken my infection rate metric (confirmed cases
per million population) to the next level: interactive
county-by-county visualization. This shows hot spots that state level
data miss. Hot spots are counties with high infection rate that are
surrounded by counties with elevated infection rates (this filters
outliers, isolated counties with a high infection rate). The U. of
Chicago is using the same data source that I am using
(1point3acres.com).

https://news.uchicago.edu/story/state-level-data-misses-growing-coronavirus-hot-spots-us-including-south

The tool allows you to drill down to county level data that
includes: 1. Confirmed case count. 2. COVID-19 deaths. 3. Licensed
hospital beds 4. Daily new data (cases, deaths, infection rate, death
rate)

https://geodacenter.github.io/covid/map.html

The country-wide view can select from 10 different metrics: 1..
Confirmed count 2. Confirmed count per 10k population 3. Confirmed
count per licensed bed (this is well above 1 for the NYC area) 4.
Death count 5. Death count per 10k population 6. Death count per
Confirmed count 7-10. Daily metrics

All of this data is available by date since the start of the crisis.
You can also compare state-only data to country data to see the
dramatic difference between the two.


The confirmed infection rate in my county is running 1.5% of the total
population as of today. The true rate will of course be much higher.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

The actual infection rate could be as much as 20 times the confirmed rate;

Everything is possible, but that's very unlikely to be true.

We will know more when we start testing lots of people for antibodies to Covid-19. This is starting to happen, but it's still relatively small scale.

Dr. Fauci seems to think it is just 2-4 times.

And that's high too, but at least he's an expert - but one stuck with the job of not showing up Donald Trump.

My bad! Those numbers were coming from actual doctors treating actual COVID patients - little did I know that you have far more global data to work with!!

Flyguy is a moron. How are actual doctors testing actual Covid-19 patients supposed to know how many people get Covid-19 without showing overt symptoms?

The only way of reliably inferring a symptomless infection is by testing the blood of the imagined infectees for antibodies, and that isn't a high priority task at the moment.

Too amazing how morons always know and agree with one another. Must be a wavelength thing.

It isn't exactly clear which morons Fred is complaining about, and what they are supposed to be agreeing about. The claim that Covid-19 has been circulating in the US since November is pretty moronic.

I say it was here in November, and that's final. It's good enough for me and I don't care what anyone else thinks. Six to twelve months down the road, when the scandal finally breaks, it's not even worth my time for a told-you-so. Factual truth is not debatable.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 1:31:38 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 12:19:27 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 1:15:33 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 11:20:31 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 10:00:41 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 12:12:39 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 1:20:45 PM UTC-7, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 2020-04-06 14:07, Flyguy wrote:
The U. of Chicago has taken my infection rate metric (confirmed cases
per million population) to the next level: interactive
county-by-county visualization. This shows hot spots that state level
data miss. Hot spots are counties with high infection rate that are
surrounded by counties with elevated infection rates (this filters
outliers, isolated counties with a high infection rate). The U. of
Chicago is using the same data source that I am using
(1point3acres.com).

https://news.uchicago.edu/story/state-level-data-misses-growing-coronavirus-hot-spots-us-including-south

The tool allows you to drill down to county level data that
includes: 1. Confirmed case count. 2. COVID-19 deaths. 3. Licensed
hospital beds 4. Daily new data (cases, deaths, infection rate, death
rate)

https://geodacenter.github.io/covid/map.html

The country-wide view can select from 10 different metrics: 1.
Confirmed count 2. Confirmed count per 10k population 3. Confirmed
count per licensed bed (this is well above 1 for the NYC area) 4.
Death count 5. Death count per 10k population 6. Death count per
Confirmed count 7-10. Daily metrics

All of this data is available by date since the start of the crisis.
You can also compare state-only data to country data to see the
dramatic difference between the two.


The confirmed infection rate in my county is running 1.5% of the total
population as of today. The true rate will of course be much higher.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

The actual infection rate could be as much as 20 times the confirmed rate;

Everything is possible, but that's very unlikely to be true.

We will know more when we start testing lots of people for antibodies to Covid-19. This is starting to happen, but it's still relatively small scale.

Dr. Fauci seems to think it is just 2-4 times.

And that's high too, but at least he's an expert - but one stuck with the job of not showing up Donald Trump.

My bad! Those numbers were coming from actual doctors treating actual COVID patients - little did I know that you have far more global data to work with!!

Flyguy is a moron. How are actual doctors testing actual Covid-19 patients supposed to know how many people get Covid-19 without showing overt symptoms?

The only way of reliably inferring a symptomless infection is by testing the blood of the imagined infectees for antibodies, and that isn't a high priority task at the moment.

Too amazing how morons always know and agree with one another. Must be a wavelength thing.

It isn't exactly clear which morons Fred is complaining about, and what they are supposed to be agreeing about. The claim that Covid-19 has been circulating in the US since November is pretty moronic.

I say it was here in November, and that's final. It's good enough for me and I don't care what anyone else thinks. Six to twelve months down the road, when the scandal finally breaks, it's not even worth my time for a told-you-so. Factual truth is not debatable.


--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

The Pentagon has issued a denial.

"The National Center for Medical Intelligence issued a rare public
denial of a report by ABC News, which alleged that “concerns about
what is now known to be the novel coronavirus pandemic were detailed
in a November intelligence report” by the NCMI, which is part of the
Defense Intelligence Agency."
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense-national-security/pentagon-denies-abc-news-report-that-intelligence-warned-of-cataclysmic-coronavirus-pandemic-last-november

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Ricky C]

On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 12:19:27 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

The only way of reliably inferring a symptomless infection is by testing the blood of the imagined infectees for antibodies, and that isn't a high priority task at the moment.

Or more reliable would be to test for nucleic acids which is the test we've been using for months. Testing for antibodies might indicate if the disease was present previously but now gone and won't give a positive result until after the person has been infected for some time and ramps up an antibody response.

--

Rick C.

--+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Ricky C]

On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 1:31:38 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 12:19:27 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 1:15:33 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 11:20:31 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 10:00:41 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 12:12:39 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 1:20:45 PM UTC-7, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 2020-04-06 14:07, Flyguy wrote:
The U. of Chicago has taken my infection rate metric (confirmed cases
per million population) to the next level: interactive
county-by-county visualization. This shows hot spots that state level
data miss. Hot spots are counties with high infection rate that are
surrounded by counties with elevated infection rates (this filters
outliers, isolated counties with a high infection rate). The U. of
Chicago is using the same data source that I am using
(1point3acres.com).

https://news.uchicago.edu/story/state-level-data-misses-growing-coronavirus-hot-spots-us-including-south

The tool allows you to drill down to county level data that
includes: 1. Confirmed case count. 2. COVID-19 deaths. 3. Licensed
hospital beds 4. Daily new data (cases, deaths, infection rate, death
rate)

https://geodacenter.github.io/covid/map.html

The country-wide view can select from 10 different metrics: 1.
Confirmed count 2. Confirmed count per 10k population 3. Confirmed
count per licensed bed (this is well above 1 for the NYC area) 4.
Death count 5. Death count per 10k population 6. Death count per
Confirmed count 7-10. Daily metrics

All of this data is available by date since the start of the crisis.
You can also compare state-only data to country data to see the
dramatic difference between the two.


The confirmed infection rate in my county is running 1.5% of the total
population as of today. The true rate will of course be much higher.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

The actual infection rate could be as much as 20 times the confirmed rate;

Everything is possible, but that's very unlikely to be true.

We will know more when we start testing lots of people for antibodies to Covid-19. This is starting to happen, but it's still relatively small scale.

Dr. Fauci seems to think it is just 2-4 times.

And that's high too, but at least he's an expert - but one stuck with the job of not showing up Donald Trump.

My bad! Those numbers were coming from actual doctors treating actual COVID patients - little did I know that you have far more global data to work with!!

Flyguy is a moron. How are actual doctors testing actual Covid-19 patients supposed to know how many people get Covid-19 without showing overt symptoms?

The only way of reliably inferring a symptomless infection is by testing the blood of the imagined infectees for antibodies, and that isn't a high priority task at the moment.

Too amazing how morons always know and agree with one another. Must be a wavelength thing.

It isn't exactly clear which morons Fred is complaining about, and what they are supposed to be agreeing about. The claim that Covid-19 has been circulating in the US since November is pretty moronic.

I say it was here in November, and that's final. It's good enough for me and I don't care what anyone else thinks. Six to twelve months down the road, when the scandal finally breaks, it's not even worth my time for a told-you-so. Factual truth is not debatable.

So is this an evidence based factual truth or did it come from a divine presence?

--

Rick C.

-+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 2:16:25 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 1:31:38 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 12:19:27 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 1:15:33 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 11:20:31 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 10:00:41 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 12:12:39 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 1:20:45 PM UTC-7, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 2020-04-06 14:07, Flyguy wrote:
The U. of Chicago has taken my infection rate metric (confirmed cases
per million population) to the next level: interactive
county-by-county visualization. This shows hot spots that state level
data miss. Hot spots are counties with high infection rate that are
surrounded by counties with elevated infection rates (this filters
outliers, isolated counties with a high infection rate). The U. of
Chicago is using the same data source that I am using
(1point3acres.com).

https://news.uchicago.edu/story/state-level-data-misses-growing-coronavirus-hot-spots-us-including-south

The tool allows you to drill down to county level data that
includes: 1. Confirmed case count. 2. COVID-19 deaths. 3. Licensed
hospital beds 4. Daily new data (cases, deaths, infection rate, death
rate)

https://geodacenter.github.io/covid/map.html

The country-wide view can select from 10 different metrics: 1.
Confirmed count 2. Confirmed count per 10k population 3. Confirmed
count per licensed bed (this is well above 1 for the NYC area) 4.
Death count 5. Death count per 10k population 6. Death count per
Confirmed count 7-10. Daily metrics

All of this data is available by date since the start of the crisis.
You can also compare state-only data to country data to see the
dramatic difference between the two.


The confirmed infection rate in my county is running 1.5% of the total
population as of today. The true rate will of course be much higher.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

The actual infection rate could be as much as 20 times the confirmed rate;

Everything is possible, but that's very unlikely to be true.

We will know more when we start testing lots of people for antibodies to Covid-19. This is starting to happen, but it's still relatively small scale.

Dr. Fauci seems to think it is just 2-4 times.

And that's high too, but at least he's an expert - but one stuck with the job of not showing up Donald Trump.

My bad! Those numbers were coming from actual doctors treating actual COVID patients - little did I know that you have far more global data to work with!!

Flyguy is a moron. How are actual doctors testing actual Covid-19 patients supposed to know how many people get Covid-19 without showing overt symptoms?

The only way of reliably inferring a symptomless infection is by testing the blood of the imagined infectees for antibodies, and that isn't a high priority task at the moment.

Too amazing how morons always know and agree with one another. Must be a wavelength thing.

It isn't exactly clear which morons Fred is complaining about, and what they are supposed to be agreeing about. The claim that Covid-19 has been circulating in the US since November is pretty moronic.

I say it was here in November, and that's final. It's good enough for me and I don't care what anyone else thinks. Six to twelve months down the road, when the scandal finally breaks, it's not even worth my time for a told-you-so. Factual truth is not debatable.


--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

The Pentagon has issued a denial.

"The National Center for Medical Intelligence issued a rare public
denial of a report by ABC News, which alleged that “concerns about
what is now known to be the novel coronavirus pandemic were detailed
in a November intelligence report” by the NCMI, which is part of the
Defense Intelligence Agency."
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense-national-security/pentagon-denies-abc-news-report-that-intelligence-warned-of-cataclysmic-coronavirus-pandemic-last-november

Cheers,
James Arthur

That story is about the Pentagon's denial and not the medical intelligence on China. The Pentagon lies about everything and has absolutely no credibility whatsoever. Any fool can back-interpolate the Chinese disease spread to epidemic levels in late December, landing them squarely on significant numbers of infected people in late November, and enough people infected in early November to raise concerns.

 

[Flyguy]

On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 9:19:27 AM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 1:15:33 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 11:20:31 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 10:00:41 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 12:12:39 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 1:20:45 PM UTC-7, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 2020-04-06 14:07, Flyguy wrote:
The U. of Chicago has taken my infection rate metric (confirmed cases
per million population) to the next level: interactive
county-by-county visualization. This shows hot spots that state level
data miss. Hot spots are counties with high infection rate that are
surrounded by counties with elevated infection rates (this filters
outliers, isolated counties with a high infection rate). The U. of
Chicago is using the same data source that I am using
(1point3acres.com).

https://news.uchicago.edu/story/state-level-data-misses-growing-coronavirus-hot-spots-us-including-south

The tool allows you to drill down to county level data that
includes: 1. Confirmed case count. 2. COVID-19 deaths. 3. Licensed
hospital beds 4. Daily new data (cases, deaths, infection rate, death
rate)

https://geodacenter.github.io/covid/map.html

The country-wide view can select from 10 different metrics: 1..
Confirmed count 2. Confirmed count per 10k population 3. Confirmed
count per licensed bed (this is well above 1 for the NYC area) 4.
Death count 5. Death count per 10k population 6. Death count per
Confirmed count 7-10. Daily metrics

All of this data is available by date since the start of the crisis.
You can also compare state-only data to country data to see the
dramatic difference between the two.


The confirmed infection rate in my county is running 1.5% of the total
population as of today. The true rate will of course be much higher.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

The actual infection rate could be as much as 20 times the confirmed rate;

Everything is possible, but that's very unlikely to be true.

We will know more when we start testing lots of people for antibodies to Covid-19. This is starting to happen, but it's still relatively small scale.

Dr. Fauci seems to think it is just 2-4 times.

And that's high too, but at least he's an expert - but one stuck with the job of not showing up Donald Trump.

My bad! Those numbers were coming from actual doctors treating actual COVID patients - little did I know that you have far more global data to work with!!

Flyguy is a moron. How are actual doctors testing actual Covid-19 patients supposed to know how many people get Covid-19 without showing overt symptoms?

The only way of reliably inferring a symptomless infection is by testing the blood of the imagined infectees for antibodies, and that isn't a high priority task at the moment.

Too amazing how morons always know and agree with one another. Must be a wavelength thing.

It isn't exactly clear which morons Fred is complaining about, and what they are supposed to be agreeing about. The claim that Covid-19 has been circulating in the US since November is pretty moronic.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

You, again, are the moron - these doctors are seeing a steady stream of patients WITH overt symptoms. And they are advising these patients NOT to go to the hospital because they are not sick enough to get admitted. They are also advising them NOT to get tested because a positive test will necessitate TWO negative tests to clear the patient, for a total of three tests, tests that won't change their outcomes, but will load down the system and expose hospital workers to the virus.

Everybody but you knows that the number of infected people vastly exceeds the number of confirmed cases.

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 2020-04-09 14:16, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 1:31:38 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 12:19:27 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 1:15:33 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 11:20:31 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 10:00:41 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 12:12:39 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 1:20:45 PM UTC-7, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 2020-04-06 14:07, Flyguy wrote:
The U. of Chicago has taken my infection rate metric (confirmed cases
per million population) to the next level: interactive
county-by-county visualization. This shows hot spots that state level
data miss. Hot spots are counties with high infection rate that are
surrounded by counties with elevated infection rates (this filters
outliers, isolated counties with a high infection rate). The U. of
Chicago is using the same data source that I am using
(1point3acres.com).

https://news.uchicago.edu/story/state-level-data-misses-growing-coronavirus-hot-spots-us-including-south

The tool allows you to drill down to county level data that
includes: 1. Confirmed case count. 2. COVID-19 deaths. 3. Licensed
hospital beds 4. Daily new data (cases, deaths, infection rate, death
rate)

https://geodacenter.github.io/covid/map.html

The country-wide view can select from 10 different metrics: 1.
Confirmed count 2. Confirmed count per 10k population 3. Confirmed
count per licensed bed (this is well above 1 for the NYC area) 4.
Death count 5. Death count per 10k population 6. Death count per
Confirmed count 7-10. Daily metrics

All of this data is available by date since the start of the crisis.
You can also compare state-only data to country data to see the
dramatic difference between the two.


The confirmed infection rate in my county is running 1.5% of the total
population as of today. The true rate will of course be much higher.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

The actual infection rate could be as much as 20 times the confirmed rate;

Everything is possible, but that's very unlikely to be true.

We will know more when we start testing lots of people for antibodies to Covid-19. This is starting to happen, but it's still relatively small scale.

Dr. Fauci seems to think it is just 2-4 times.

And that's high too, but at least he's an expert - but one stuck with the job of not showing up Donald Trump.

My bad! Those numbers were coming from actual doctors treating actual COVID patients - little did I know that you have far more global data to work with!!

Flyguy is a moron. How are actual doctors testing actual Covid-19 patients supposed to know how many people get Covid-19 without showing overt symptoms?

The only way of reliably inferring a symptomless infection is by testing the blood of the imagined infectees for antibodies, and that isn't a high priority task at the moment.

Too amazing how morons always know and agree with one another. Must be a wavelength thing.

It isn't exactly clear which morons Fred is complaining about, and what they are supposed to be agreeing about. The claim that Covid-19 has been circulating in the US since November is pretty moronic.

I say it was here in November, and that's final. It's good enough for me and I don't care what anyone else thinks. Six to twelve months down the road, when the scandal finally breaks, it's not even worth my time for a told-you-so. Factual truth is not debatable.


--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

The Pentagon has issued a denial.

"The National Center for Medical Intelligence issued a rare public
denial of a report by ABC News, which alleged that “concerns about
what is now known to be the novel coronavirus pandemic were detailed
in a November intelligence report” by the NCMI, which is part of the
Defense Intelligence Agency."
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense-national-security/pentagon-denies-abc-news-report-that-intelligence-warned-of-cataclysmic-coronavirus-pandemic-last-november

Cheers,
James Arthur

As Sir Humphrey said, "Never believe anything until it has been
officially denied."

An old mentor of mine, who escaped from Czechoslovakia in 1968, used to
say "Everything is otherwise."

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 3:29:09 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 11:32:25 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 12:57:05 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 1:10:05 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 7:52:53 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 12:04:00 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 1:54:02 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 1:00:41 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

snip

My point was the rapid antibody test will be unusable towards a large scale retrospective study of the spread of the epidemic, but apparently that was lost on you.

Still is. The conclusion seemed to be based on the idea that antibodies go away with time, when the real problem is that RNA viruses mutate fast enough the antibody to the ancestral virus doesn't react to it's remote descendant,

There have been no such mutations noted, and the various mutations and/or strains that have been identified, using a much larger population than just a single individual, all have the same immutable S-(spike) protein used for cell fusion/infection. All the rapid antibody tests are looking for the IgX's targeting that S-protein.

All the rapid antibody tests may be looking for the spike protein, but natural antibodies aren't that specific, otherwise the 25% of colds caused by corona viruses would be blocked by our own antibodies, and SARs, MERS and Covid-19 wouldn't have infected us.

Some weeks ago a I posted a link to some work on a synthetic vaccine which was supposed to create lots of synthetic spike protein in the blood of the people being vaccinated, so that they'd antibodies that reacted just to the spike protein on the surface of any of the corona viruses - SARS, MERs, Civd-19 and the one that cause 25% of common colds - natural antibodies seem to go for larger targets, and the viruses do mutate enough to change the spacing between the spike proteins, so that natural antibodies don't pick up on different corona viruses.

You still seem confused about the two distinct types of antibody tests: 1) the one type looking for antibodies in the blood that react to a specific antigen, and 2) the type looking for antigens in the blood that react to a specific antibody.

I can't imagine why you think that. I worked on a machine that used monoclonal antibodies to latch onto specific infective agents - the one that got sold to Porton Down got sold with a bunch of disposable sensing blocks that had been loaded with an antibody that latched onto Yersinia pestis (the Black Plague bacterium).

All that may be fine and dandy, but you obviously didn't have to know squat about immunobiology to do whatever engineering you were doing. So your claim to having any kind of credentials is vacuous.

I don't have any credentials for immunology - any more than I do for electronics - and I definitely wasn't doing any of the immunolgy on the machine. I knew enough immunology at the time to have a perfectly adequate understanding of what was going on. When I was a graduate student I lived in a place that also accommodated lots of visitors to the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute in Melbourne, so immunology did come up in conversation, and I've been interested in it ever since.

The natural antibodies in the blood latch onto specific bacteria and viruses, and there are well known tests to checked whether you've been infected - that's how the Dutch doctors worked out that my wife's weird symptoms were caused by secondary European Lyme disease (borrelia). My Dutch GP checked me out years later, and I had antibodies to borrelia too, but my immune system seemed to have got rid of the bugs at the primary stage of the infection.

Nothing by way of the second test are even in the process of being introduced, mainly because they're a lot more trouble with raising transgenic animal stock, infecting them and extracting and tagging antibodies. Even you should be able to understand how much more work that is.

Your "second test" looking for antigens in the blood (or saliva or nasal mucus) is an example of what is used to check for the Covid-19 virus.

Wow- you're so out to lunch you won't be back until Christmas! That's the PCR looking for gene sequence (s) in the antigen. Nobody calls that an antibody test, they're called RT-PCR surprisingly enough. And they have developed rapid PCR, see my post about Abbott Labs recent introduction, the 5-minute test, that's going to make them richer than rich.

That certainly one way of doing it, but there's also a rapid two way test available that test both for the virus and antibodies to it, which has been mentioned here.

That clearly didn't involved sequencing the genome of the virus.

Monoclonal antibodies are great at locking onto specific antigens - as used in the machine I worked on.

The confusion is clearly all yours.

Monoclonal antibodies just don't drop out of the sky, especially in your day. They were designed from antibodies isolated from people and or animals who survived the disease. Even in this day and with their incredible simulation capability, the monoclonal antibody manufacturers are using survivor anitbodies. I know you're so damned dumb you think they're using the survivor's actual antibody, but it really means they're using the antibody the survivor's immune designed designed, and then going to transgenic mic or some other means to actually mass produce the antibody.

What do you think "monoclonal" refers to? Somebody cloned a particular cell that was churning out the desired antibody, and replicated it on an industrial scale to churn out a lot of that particular antibody.

As soon as you have got a lot of single molecule you can start working out it's atomic structure, how it folds and all the other difficult stuff that determines how it latches on to it's antigen. I was trained as a physical chemists, but the structural chemists spent as much time on the university computer as I did.

Back then Max Perutz had just the Nobel Prize for working out the molecular structure of haemoglobin. One of my friends from the period did a post-doc at his laboratory for molecular biology in Cambridge, and I picked her up from there once or twice. The science has moved on quite a bit since then (and so has the friend - the friendship wasn't that close and didn't last).

"biochemist is Head of the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at the University of Melbourne where she earned her Ph.D. in Biochemistry in 1974. Subsequently she went to Cambridge to do post-doctoral work."

I've not got any credentials at all in immunology, but I do know quite a bit about it. You may have mastered more snippets, but you don't seem to understand all that much.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 3:31:38 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 12:19:27 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 1:15:33 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 11:20:31 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 10:00:41 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 12:12:39 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 1:20:45 PM UTC-7, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 2020-04-06 14:07, Flyguy wrote:

<snip>

It isn't exactly clear which morons Fred is complaining about, and what they are supposed to be agreeing about. The claim that Covid-19 has been circulating in the US since November is pretty moronic.

I say it was here in November, and that's final. It's good enough for me and I don't care what anyone else thinks.

Just as well, since anybody with a brain in their head is going to think yours is away with fairies.

>Six to twelve months down the road, when the scandal finally breaks, it's not even worth my time for a told-you-so. Factual truth is not debatable.

Unfortunately assertions based on facts which don't appear to exist aren't so much debatable as derisible.

You've not offered a shred of convincing evidence that there was any Covid-19 infection in the US in November 2019, and the fact that the US epidemic took off from the middle of February is convincing evidence that it wasn't.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

Stick a straight edge on the linear part logarithmic plot of case numbers and note where it hits the "one patient" axis.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 10:26:14 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 2:16:25 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 1:31:38 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 12:19:27 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 1:15:33 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail..com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 11:20:31 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 10:00:41 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 12:12:39 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 1:20:45 PM UTC-7, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 2020-04-06 14:07, Flyguy wrote:

<snip>

The Pentagon has issued a denial.

"The National Center for Medical Intelligence issued a rare public
denial of a report by ABC News, which alleged that “concerns about
what is now known to be the novel coronavirus pandemic were detailed
in a November intelligence report” by the NCMI, which is part of the
Defense Intelligence Agency."
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense-national-security/pentagon-denies-abc-news-report-that-intelligence-warned-of-cataclysmic-coronavirus-pandemic-last-november

That story is about the Pentagon's denial and not the medical intelligence on China. The Pentagon lies about everything and has absolutely no credibility whatsoever. Any fool can back-interpolate the Chinese disease spread to epidemic levels in late December, landing them squarely on significant numbers of infected people in late November, and enough people infected in early November to raise concerns.

Rubbish.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/china/

If you look at January infection numbers, they back-extrapolate to a patient zero in mid-January. This doesn't fit with the observation that there were enough people getting hospitalised with a strange pneumonia in December to get the medical staff at the Wuhan hospitals worried, so it probably reflects the ramping up of testing for Covid-19 rather than the initial spread of the disease, but as much as you may want to invent evidence to support your deluded suspicions, if there's no data which you can use to back-interpolate, any claim you make based on that non-existent data is entirely vacuous.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 11:26:33 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:

On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 9:19:27 AM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 1:15:33 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 11:20:31 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 10:00:41 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 12:12:39 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 1:20:45 PM UTC-7, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 2020-04-06 14:07, Flyguy wrote:

<snip>

The actual infection rate could be as much as 20 times the confirmed rate;

Everything is possible, but that's very unlikely to be true.

We will know more when we start testing lots of people for antibodies to Covid-19. This is starting to happen, but it's still relatively small scale.

Dr. Fauci seems to think it is just 2-4 times.

And that's high too, but at least he's an expert - but one stuck with the job of not showing up Donald Trump.

My bad! Those numbers were coming from actual doctors treating actual COVID patients - little did I know that you have far more global data to work with!!

Flyguy is a moron. How are actual doctors testing actual Covid-19 patients supposed to know how many people get Covid-19 without showing overt symptoms?

The only way of reliably inferring a symptomless infection is by testing the blood of the imagined infectees for antibodies, and that isn't a high priority task at the moment.

Too amazing how morons always know and agree with one another. Must be a wavelength thing.

It isn't exactly clear which morons Fred is complaining about, and what they are supposed to be agreeing about. The claim that Covid-19 has been circulating in the US since November is pretty moronic.

You, again, are the moron - these doctors are seeing a steady stream of patients WITH overt symptoms. And they are advising these patients NOT to go to the hospital because they are not sick enough to get admitted. They are also advising them NOT to get tested because a positive test will necessitate TWO negative tests to clear the patient, for a total of three tests, tests that won't change their outcomes, but will load down the system and expose hospital workers to the virus.

You are talking about the US which has a scandalous shortage of test kits.

Australia doesn't, and it currently testing more than anybody else except South Korea. About 2% of the tests being done are turning out positive for Covoid-19.

If there were a lot more people who got it who didn't display symptoms than those who get sick, we'd hear about it.

> Everybody but you knows that the number of infected people vastly exceeds the number of confirmed cases.

I know that there are some people who catch the disease that don't make into the lists of confirmed cases.

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2020/4/2/21197617/coronavirus-pandemic-covid-19-death-rate-transmission-risk-factors-lockdowns-social-distancing

"There are no firm estimates on this, but it seems that somewhere between 25 and 50 percent of people infected with the virus show no symptoms."

This is rather lower than the number that Fauci gave. Your number is a lot less credible - even ignoring that fact that nothing you say is remotely to be relied on.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 1:09:53 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 3:29:09 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 11:32:25 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 12:57:05 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 1:10:05 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 7:52:53 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 12:04:00 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 1:54:02 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre....@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 1:00:41 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

snip

My point was the rapid antibody test will be unusable towards a large scale retrospective study of the spread of the epidemic, but apparently that was lost on you.

Still is. The conclusion seemed to be based on the idea that antibodies go away with time, when the real problem is that RNA viruses mutate fast enough the antibody to the ancestral virus doesn't react to it's remote descendant,

There have been no such mutations noted, and the various mutations and/or strains that have been identified, using a much larger population than just a single individual, all have the same immutable S-(spike) protein used for cell fusion/infection. All the rapid antibody tests are looking for the IgX's targeting that S-protein.

All the rapid antibody tests may be looking for the spike protein, but natural antibodies aren't that specific, otherwise the 25% of colds caused by corona viruses would be blocked by our own antibodies, and SARs, MERS and Covid-19 wouldn't have infected us.

Some weeks ago a I posted a link to some work on a synthetic vaccine which was supposed to create lots of synthetic spike protein in the blood of the people being vaccinated, so that they'd antibodies that reacted just to the spike protein on the surface of any of the corona viruses - SARS, MERs, Civd-19 and the one that cause 25% of common colds - natural antibodies seem to go for larger targets, and the viruses do mutate enough to change the spacing between the spike proteins, so that natural antibodies don't pick up on different corona viruses.

You still seem confused about the two distinct types of antibody tests: 1) the one type looking for antibodies in the blood that react to a specific antigen, and 2) the type looking for antigens in the blood that react to a specific antibody.

I can't imagine why you think that. I worked on a machine that used monoclonal antibodies to latch onto specific infective agents - the one that got sold to Porton Down got sold with a bunch of disposable sensing blocks that had been loaded with an antibody that latched onto Yersinia pestis (the Black Plague bacterium).

All that may be fine and dandy, but you obviously didn't have to know squat about immunobiology to do whatever engineering you were doing. So your claim to having any kind of credentials is vacuous.

I don't have any credentials for immunology - any more than I do for electronics - and I definitely wasn't doing any of the immunolgy on the machine.. I knew enough immunology at the time to have a perfectly adequate understanding of what was going on. When I was a graduate student I lived in a place that also accommodated lots of visitors to the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute in Melbourne, so immunology did come up in conversation, and I've been interested in it ever since.

The natural antibodies in the blood latch onto specific bacteria and viruses, and there are well known tests to checked whether you've been infected - that's how the Dutch doctors worked out that my wife's weird symptoms were caused by secondary European Lyme disease (borrelia). My Dutch GP checked me out years later, and I had antibodies to borrelia too, but my immune system seemed to have got rid of the bugs at the primary stage of the infection.

Nothing by way of the second test are even in the process of being introduced, mainly because they're a lot more trouble with raising transgenic animal stock, infecting them and extracting and tagging antibodies. Even you should be able to understand how much more work that is.

Your "second test" looking for antigens in the blood (or saliva or nasal mucus) is an example of what is used to check for the Covid-19 virus.

Wow- you're so out to lunch you won't be back until Christmas! That's the PCR looking for gene sequence (s) in the antigen. Nobody calls that an antibody test, they're called RT-PCR surprisingly enough. And they have developed rapid PCR, see my post about Abbott Labs recent introduction, the 5-minute test, that's going to make them richer than rich.

That certainly one way of doing it, but there's also a rapid two way test available that test both for the virus and antibodies to it, which has been mentioned here.

That clearly didn't involved sequencing the genome of the virus.

Monoclonal antibodies are great at locking onto specific antigens - as used in the machine I worked on.

The confusion is clearly all yours.

Monoclonal antibodies just don't drop out of the sky, especially in your day. They were designed from antibodies isolated from people and or animals who survived the disease. Even in this day and with their incredible simulation capability, the monoclonal antibody manufacturers are using survivor anitbodies. I know you're so damned dumb you think they're using the survivor's actual antibody, but it really means they're using the antibody the survivor's immune designed designed, and then going to transgenic mic or some other means to actually mass produce the antibody.

What do you think "monoclonal" refers to? Somebody cloned a particular cell that was churning out the desired antibody, and replicated it on an industrial scale to churn out a lot of that particular antibody.

As soon as you have got a lot of single molecule you can start working out it's atomic structure, how it folds and all the other difficult stuff that determines how it latches on to it's antigen. I was trained as a physical chemists, but the structural chemists spent as much time on the university computer as I did.

Back then Max Perutz had just the Nobel Prize for working out the molecular structure of haemoglobin. One of my friends from the period did a post-doc at his laboratory for molecular biology in Cambridge, and I picked her up from there once or twice. The science has moved on quite a bit since then (and so has the friend - the friendship wasn't that close and didn't last)..

"biochemist is Head of the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at the University of Melbourne where she earned her Ph.D. in Biochemistry in 1974. Subsequently she went to Cambridge to do post-doctoral work."

I've not got any credentials at all in immunology, but I do know quite a bit about it. You may have mastered more snippets, but you don't seem to understand all that much.

Whatever you think you know it has not helped you rise up out of a mire of irrationality with your wackadoodle explanations of things, every single one of which is wrong.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Winfield Hill]

Flyguy wrote...

The U. of Chicago has taken my infection rate metric (confirmed
cases per million population) to the next level: interactive
county-by-county visualization. This shows hot spots that state
level data miss. Hot spots are counties with high infection rate
that are surrounded by counties with elevated infection rates
(this filters outliers, isolated counties with a high infection
rate). The U. of Chicago is using the same data source that I am
using (1point3acres.com).

https://news.uchicago.edu/story/state-level-data-misses-growing-coronavirus
-hot-spots-us-including-south

The tool allows you to drill down to county level data that includes:
1. Confirmed case count.
2. COVID-19 deaths.
3. Licensed hospital beds
4. Daily new data (cases, deaths, infection rate, death rate)

https://geodacenter.github.io/covid/map.html

The country-wide view can select from 10 different metrics:
1. Confirmed count
2. Confirmed count per 10k population
3. Confirmed count per licensed bed (this is well above 1 for the NYC area)
4. Death count
5. Death count per 10k population
6. Death count per Confirmed count
7-10. Daily metrics

All of this data is available by date since the start of the
crisis. You can also compare state-only data to country data
to see the dramatic difference between the two.

I'm sorry to see my county, Middlesex, MA is still climbing,
after 3 to 4 weeks of confinement. Well, with 3,545 cases,
at least it's not as bad as Queens, NY, with 26,248 cases.


--
Thanks,
- Win

 

[Ricky C]

On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 10:53:19 AM UTC-4, Winfield Hill wrote:

Flyguy wrote...

The U. of Chicago has taken my infection rate metric (confirmed
cases per million population) to the next level: interactive
county-by-county visualization. This shows hot spots that state
level data miss. Hot spots are counties with high infection rate
that are surrounded by counties with elevated infection rates
(this filters outliers, isolated counties with a high infection
rate). The U. of Chicago is using the same data source that I am
using (1point3acres.com).

https://news.uchicago.edu/story/state-level-data-misses-growing-coronavirus
-hot-spots-us-including-south

The tool allows you to drill down to county level data that includes:
1. Confirmed case count.
2. COVID-19 deaths.
3. Licensed hospital beds
4. Daily new data (cases, deaths, infection rate, death rate)

https://geodacenter.github.io/covid/map.html

The country-wide view can select from 10 different metrics:
1. Confirmed count
2. Confirmed count per 10k population
3. Confirmed count per licensed bed (this is well above 1 for the NYC area)
4. Death count
5. Death count per 10k population
6. Death count per Confirmed count
7-10. Daily metrics

All of this data is available by date since the start of the
crisis. You can also compare state-only data to country data
to see the dramatic difference between the two.

I'm sorry to see my county, Middlesex, MA is still climbing,
after 3 to 4 weeks of confinement. Well, with 3,545 cases,
at least it's not as bad as Queens, NY, with 26,248 cases.

The total case count will always be climbing, no? What are the daily new case counts like? That's the important number. That and the daily deaths.

--

Rick C.

-++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Flyguy]

On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 2:41:26 PM UTC-7, Ricky C wrote:

On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 10:53:19 AM UTC-4, Winfield Hill wrote:
Flyguy wrote...

The U. of Chicago has taken my infection rate metric (confirmed
cases per million population) to the next level: interactive
county-by-county visualization. This shows hot spots that state
level data miss. Hot spots are counties with high infection rate
that are surrounded by counties with elevated infection rates
(this filters outliers, isolated counties with a high infection
rate). The U. of Chicago is using the same data source that I am
using (1point3acres.com).

https://news.uchicago.edu/story/state-level-data-misses-growing-coronavirus
-hot-spots-us-including-south

The tool allows you to drill down to county level data that includes:
1. Confirmed case count.
2. COVID-19 deaths.
3. Licensed hospital beds
4. Daily new data (cases, deaths, infection rate, death rate)

https://geodacenter.github.io/covid/map.html

The country-wide view can select from 10 different metrics:
1. Confirmed count
2. Confirmed count per 10k population
3. Confirmed count per licensed bed (this is well above 1 for the NYC area)
4. Death count
5. Death count per 10k population
6. Death count per Confirmed count
7-10. Daily metrics

All of this data is available by date since the start of the
crisis. You can also compare state-only data to country data
to see the dramatic difference between the two.

I'm sorry to see my county, Middlesex, MA is still climbing,
after 3 to 4 weeks of confinement. Well, with 3,545 cases,
at least it's not as bad as Queens, NY, with 26,248 cases.

The total case count will always be climbing, no? What are the daily new case counts like? That's the important number. That and the daily deaths.

The first is an integral; the second two are derivatives. Both have their place. Even more important is the second derivative.

 

[Flyguy]

> I've not got any credentials at all in immunology

Hey Slow Man, that's what a HALF-WIT would say.

 

[Ricky C]

On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 8:51:44 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:

On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 2:41:26 PM UTC-7, Ricky C wrote:

The total case count will always be climbing, no? What are the daily new case counts like? That's the important number. That and the daily deaths.

The first is an integral; the second two are derivatives. Both have their place. Even more important is the second derivative.

Everything is both an integral and a derivative as well as neither.

Tossing those terms about means nothing. But then that's what you know best, nothing. You libtard!

--

Rick C.

+-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, April 11, 2020 at 10:48:43 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:

I've not got any credentials at all in immunology

Hey Sloman, that's what a HALF-WIT would say.

That's the fallacy of the excluded middle. In fact a half-wit wouldn't talk about credentials or immunology, but the fly-blown guy is too half-witted to realise this.

Using polysyllabic words isn't proof that you aren't a half-wit - Flyguy is a two syllable word - but they don't come up too often in their output.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, April 11, 2020 at 12:34:05 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 1:09:53 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 3:29:09 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 11:32:25 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 12:57:05 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 1:10:05 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 7:52:53 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 12:04:00 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 1:54:02 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 1:00:41 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

snip

My point was the rapid antibody test will be unusable towards a large scale retrospective study of the spread of the epidemic, but apparently that was lost on you.

Still is. The conclusion seemed to be based on the idea that antibodies go away with time, when the real problem is that RNA viruses mutate fast enough the antibody to the ancestral virus doesn't react to it's remote descendant,

There have been no such mutations noted, and the various mutations and/or strains that have been identified, using a much larger population than just a single individual, all have the same immutable S-(spike) protein used for cell fusion/infection. All the rapid antibody tests are looking for the IgX's targeting that S-protein.

All the rapid antibody tests may be looking for the spike protein, but natural antibodies aren't that specific, otherwise the 25% of colds caused by corona viruses would be blocked by our own antibodies, and SARs, MERS and Covid-19 wouldn't have infected us.

Some weeks ago a I posted a link to some work on a synthetic vaccine which was supposed to create lots of synthetic spike protein in the blood of the people being vaccinated, so that they'd antibodies that reacted just to the spike protein on the surface of any of the corona viruses - SARS, MERs, Civd-19 and the one that cause 25% of common colds - natural antibodies seem to go for larger targets, and the viruses do mutate enough to change the spacing between the spike proteins, so that natural antibodies don't pick up on different corona viruses.

You still seem confused about the two distinct types of antibody tests: 1) the one type looking for antibodies in the blood that react to a specific antigen, and 2) the type looking for antigens in the blood that react to a specific antibody.

I can't imagine why you think that. I worked on a machine that used monoclonal antibodies to latch onto specific infective agents - the one that got sold to Porton Down got sold with a bunch of disposable sensing blocks that had been loaded with an antibody that latched onto Yersinia pestis (the Black Plague bacterium).

All that may be fine and dandy, but you obviously didn't have to know squat about immunobiology to do whatever engineering you were doing. So your claim to having any kind of credentials is vacuous.

I don't have any credentials for immunology - any more than I do for electronics - and I definitely wasn't doing any of the immunolgy on the machine. I knew enough immunology at the time to have a perfectly adequate understanding of what was going on. When I was a graduate student I lived in a place that also accommodated lots of visitors to the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute in Melbourne, so immunology did come up in conversation, and I've been interested in it ever since.

The natural antibodies in the blood latch onto specific bacteria and viruses, and there are well known tests to checked whether you've been infected - that's how the Dutch doctors worked out that my wife's weird symptoms were caused by secondary European Lyme disease (borrelia). My Dutch GP checked me out years later, and I had antibodies to borrelia too, but my immune system seemed to have got rid of the bugs at the primary stage of the infection.

Nothing by way of the second test are even in the process of being introduced, mainly because they're a lot more trouble with raising transgenic animal stock, infecting them and extracting and tagging antibodies. Even you should be able to understand how much more work that is.

Your "second test" looking for antigens in the blood (or saliva or nasal mucus) is an example of what is used to check for the Covid-19 virus.

Wow- you're so out to lunch you won't be back until Christmas! That's the PCR looking for gene sequence (s) in the antigen. Nobody calls that an antibody test, they're called RT-PCR surprisingly enough. And they have developed rapid PCR, see my post about Abbott Labs recent introduction, the 5-minute test, that's going to make them richer than rich.

That certainly one way of doing it, but there's also a rapid two way test available that test both for the virus and antibodies to it, which has been mentioned here.

That clearly didn't involved sequencing the genome of the virus.

Monoclonal antibodies are great at locking onto specific antigens - as used in the machine I worked on.

The confusion is clearly all yours.

Monoclonal antibodies just don't drop out of the sky, especially in your day. They were designed from antibodies isolated from people and or animals who survived the disease. Even in this day and with their incredible simulation capability, the monoclonal antibody manufacturers are using survivor anitbodies. I know you're so damned dumb you think they're using the survivor's actual antibody, but it really means they're using the antibody the survivor's immune designed designed, and then going to transgenic mic or some other means to actually mass produce the antibody.

What do you think "monoclonal" refers to? Somebody cloned a particular cell that was churning out the desired antibody, and replicated it on an industrial scale to churn out a lot of that particular antibody.

As soon as you have got a lot of single molecule you can start working out it's atomic structure, how it folds and all the other difficult stuff that determines how it latches on to it's antigen. I was trained as a physical chemists, but the structural chemists spent as much time on the university computer as I did.

Back then Max Perutz had just the Nobel Prize for working out the molecular structure of haemoglobin. One of my friends from the period did a post-doc at his laboratory for molecular biology in Cambridge, and I picked her up from there once or twice. The science has moved on quite a bit since then (and so has the friend - the friendship wasn't that close and didn't last).

"biochemist is Head of the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at the University of Melbourne where she earned her Ph.D. in Biochemistry in 1974. Subsequently she went to Cambridge to do post-doctoral work."

I've not got any credentials at all in immunology, but I do know quite a bit about it. You may have mastered more snippets, but you don't seem to understand all that much.

Whatever you think you know it has not helped you rise up out of a mire of irrationality with your wackadoodle explanations of things, every single one of which is wrong.

None of which you understand well enough to realise that they are fundamentally correct. You want a word-for-word replay of the most recent explanation you have chanced onto, and get even more confused when you don't get it.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney