Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Viral encephalitis is a potentially deadly sequela of viral infection for which there are few treatment options. It is frequently associated with blood-brain barrier (BBB; see Glossary) disruption, enabling entry of virus, inflammatory cells, and deleterious molecules into the brain parenchyma. Members of at least 11 virus families, including DNA viruses, retroviruses, and RNA viruses, cause encephalitis with significant morbidity and mortality."
"Brain abscesses are often attributed to hematogenous spread, contiguous spread, recent neurosurgical procedure, or penetrating head trauma. Endocarditis or pulmonary infections (pneumonia, empyema, and abscess) are the most common sources of hematogenous spread."
Clearly, Samoa managed to lock down before ever having a case so they managed to keep it off the island. That’s why they didn’t have any cases. Have you read anything about their approach? They locked down really tight and really early. Trying to attribute their success to the MMR vaccine is laughable.
It is extremely laughable, especially since the majority of late teens to adults in Samoa never had the MMR; they have natural immunity from having had the measles.
People think 'back to school' will cause super spreader events. But the US has a 92% uptake of the MMR, so if that were true, why worry? We have a COVID death rate of 516/million anyway.
Denmark has a 97% MMR uptake but a death rate of 107/million. Spain has a 97% MMR uptake & a COVID death rate of 612/million. Literally, the MMR has nothing to do with it.
Only one vaccine's uptake is consistently & negatively correlated with a country's COVID death rates & no vaccine uptake is positively correlated with a country's COVID death rates, including the MMR.
It is extremely laughable, especially since the majority of late teens to adults in Samoa never had the MMR; they have natural immunity from having had the measles.
People think 'back to school' will cause super spreader events. But the US has a 92% uptake of the MMR, so if that were true, why worry? We have a COVID death rate of 516/million anyway.
Denmark has a 97% MMR uptake but a death rate of 107/million. Spain has a 97% MMR uptake & a COVID death rate of 612/million. Literally, the MMR has nothing to do with it.
Only one vaccine's uptake is consistently & negatively correlated with a country's COVID death rates & no vaccine uptake is positively correlated with a country's COVID death rates, including the MMR.
No reports of MMR vaccine possibly protecting from Covid I’ve read suggests it’s specifically the immunity derived from the measles portion of the vaccine that is beneficial. In fact, it’s not even the resulting immunity to Measles, Mumps or Rubella that may be helpful. It’s the myeloid-derived suppressor cells that are reinitiated by the vaccine that may help protect against Covid.
From the link below:
“If adults got the MMR as a child, they likely still have some level of antibodies against measles, mumps, and rubella, but probably not the myeloid-derived suppressor cells,” Dr. Fidel emphasizes. “While the MDSCs are long-lived, they are not life-long cells. So, a booster MMR would enhance the antibodies to measles, mumps, and rubella and reinitiate the MDSCs. We would hope that the MDSCs induced by the MMR would have a fairly good life-span to get through the critical time of the pandemic.”
Being an island and locking down is undeniably a big factor. No one is saying that MMR is solely responsible, but Samoa contributes to the body of evidence that is saying MMR may be protective. There is also a plausible biological mechanism for the way it might work. Not laughable at all.
Obviously one does not get assigned to a nuclear aircraft carrier if one has serious medical problems. By definition the crew represent a low risk population overall, but it would be naive to think that no one on board had hypertension, diabetes, or chronic lung disease. It would be fair to guess that none were morbidly obese, and any who were even overweight would be under pressure to shape up.
I cannot find an overall breakdown on the age of the crew, but the total complement is about 4800 people. Virtually all were tested, with 1156 cases, three hospitalizations, and one death: Chief Petty Officer Charles Robert Thacker Jr. He was 41.
Therefore, 4800 people living in close quarters (look up hot bunking if you do not know what it means), 1156 cases, 3 hospitalizations, 1 death.
Common factor: MMR.
Uh ... Find the ages, lol.
In Colorado, the vast majority of cases, 10,815, to be exact; have occurred in the 20-29 age group. With only 12 deaths.
Our 10,815 cases with 12 deaths is 0.11% & that's including obese people with underlying health conditions.
Your 1156 cases with 1 death is 0.08%; no obese or excluding health conditions.
Check out this one from Kansas, it's a doozy. The first chart shows the progression of cases per 100,000 in Kansas counties with mask mandates and without, respectively. The second chart is the one that the state health department presented at a press conference, doctored to sell the effectiveness of mask mandates. The chart conveniently starts at the peak case date for the mask-mandated counties and USES DIFFERENT Y-AXES FOR MASK- AND NON-MASK-MANDATED COUNTIES to make it seem like the mask counties saw their case numbers fall below the non-mask counties, which...is not what happened at all (refer back to the first chart).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northrick
Wow, that's some clever graphery there! Despite the obvious attempt at deception, I wonder if the counties with mask mandates were seeing much higher daily case numbers and that is why they issued a mask mandate. That might explain why their numbers were consistently higher than the non-mask counties even with the masks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribecavsbrowns
I don't think there's any doubt of that. I also think the mask-mandated counties were the more urban counties (to the extent that they exist in Kansas).
Whether it's a doozy depends on how the graphs were presented. The mask mandate was introduced on 3 July. There should be a lag before the impact is demonstrated by testing. A downward trend is shown beginning 12 July in the counties with mandates (graph 1). A portion of the continued downward trend in positive cases appears due to a concurrent decrease in testing but apparently not the initial steep decline (right after 12 July, but which could be a 1-day artifact) for at that point testing was still on the rise. https://public.tableau.com/profile/p.../YourStateKeys
The second graph begins on 12 July to - in theory, best case scenario - illustrate the difference in trends between those counties with mandates (downward) and the counties without the mandate (roughly level). That graph should not be used to present the difference in absolute numbers. Me, I personally would not have changed the axes for this particular dataset - the first graph speaks for itself - although for visual clarity sometimes that's okay.
So what's been going on in Kansas? The number of positives rose sharply in June along with hospitalizations followed by deaths in July. Positivity rates doubled. This characterization comes from the Public Tableaux graphs with the axes beginning on 10 March. Those trends are less accentuated on the first Kansas state health department graph where the starting point is 22 June.
What's happening now? Hospitalizations are falling. The rate of deaths appears to no longer be increasing. The first weekly decrease in a formerly rising positivity rate appeared in early August.
Is this due to the mask mandate? Maybe in part. The rate of increase in hospitalizations started to slow 13 July and peaked the third week in July. There's probably a synergistic impact from both a mandate (with it impacting behavior in those who wouldn't otherwise change) added to those who altered behavior without the mandate due to widening viral spread perhaps earlier in time. Any short-term or one-variable analysis (and graph 2 is certainly that if meant to stand alone) is subject to too much error to draw even tentative conclusions.
Last edited by EveryLady; 08-14-2020 at 01:18 PM..
Curious, I just took a look at the worldometer graphs for Kansas. Kansas is one of those states that have had two seeming 'waves' of coronavirus infections with a early May 'peak' followed by a mid-June low before cases started climbing again probably after openings to a mid-July epidemic high before (post 3 July correlated ??? partial mask mandate) leveling then declining. No idea where the coronavirus cases occurred during the pandemic in Kansas.
Still roughly speaking, this may mean that openings = cases while masks = continued openings with Kansas a mini-example. I'm guessing the state did not enact new restrictions (business closures) during the summer resurgence but then I really don't know. It's highly unlikely that rural Kansas reached any kind of early herd immunity. So what variable is left? Behavior - mandated or not - appears to be the driver. But you'd really have to look at the situation including testing levels and consider all variables to tease that out.
Curious, I just took a look at the worldometer graphs for Kansas. Kansas is one of those states that have had two seeming 'waves' of coronavirus infections with a early May 'peak' followed by a mid-June low before cases started climbing again probably after openings to a mid-July epidemic high before (post 3 July correlated ??? partial mask mandate) leveling then declining. No idea where the coronavirus cases occurred during the pandemic in Kansas.
Roughly speaking, this may mean that openings = cases while masks = continued openings with Kansas a mini-example. I'm guessing the state did not enact new restrictions (business closures) during the summer but then I really don't know. It's highly unlikely that rural Kansas reached any kind of herd immunity early on. So what variable is left? Behavior - mandated or not - appears to be the driver.
Not much interest in Kansas has been generated in the media, Covid wise.
A recent story on NPR discussed how busy Yellowstone NP has been this summer. Very busy, actually. They interviewed a Kansas family that had rented a car and driven to the park. Much to their horror the rent a car had a Florida license plate.
So, they taped a big sign on the back window saying, "We're not from Florida, we're from Kansas!"
Not much interest in Kansas has been generated in the media, Covid wise.
A recent story on NPR discussed how busy Yellowstone NP has been this summer. Very busy, actually. They interviewed a Kansas family that had rented a car and driven to the park. Much to their horror the rent a car had a Florida license plate.
So, they taped a big sign on the back window saying, "We're not from Florida, we're from Kansas!"
Yeah - and because Kansas is relatively isolated and maybe not a major tourist destination (sorry, don't mean to offend anyone - but unlike Louisiana presumably no Mardi Gras etc.) - it alone might serve as a mini-sample of disease trends and possible correlations.
You have presented no evidence that taking the flu vaccine will prevent you from ever again having any colds, and I have presented evidence that your thesis that flu vaccine increases the risk of COVID-19 is false: one study done in Brazil and the other in the US have shown just the opposite.
In particular, having had previous colds due to coronavirus infections may provide cross protection against SARS-CoV-2. That is what Dr. Fauci was referring to.
The study to which you cling so tenaciously was not supported by a larger study:
"In univariate analyses, no association was found between influenza vaccination and single virus detection of RSV, adenovirus, human metapneumovirus, human rhinovirus, or coronavirus."
But you just said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
Research on SARS-CoV-2 has shown that having had the influenza vaccine is associated with lower mortality from COVID-19. References already provided to you multiple times.
It can't have 'NO association' with Coronavirus & a positive association with lower deaths from a Coronavirus at the same time. Unless COVID 19 isn't a Coronavirus.
Not to mention your larger study was conducted in 2004, published in 2013 & included children, unlike the DOD study done on all adults, in 2017 & published in 2020.
Last edited by coschristi; 08-14-2020 at 01:22 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
