Coronavirus in DFW - News & Discussion (Dallas, Laredo: salon, cars)

[As Above So Below...]

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

Okay, but you can't point to one article to make that point. This study seems noteworthy enough to be reported on by any outlet that is doing Covid reporting.




Okay? The article didn't indicate otherwise. I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at here. The article didn't have any other point than a study shows the virus has mutated. Whether that mutation makes it more lethal or not is a different question.

The rest of your post was in support of those two points, so I've removed it.

Its quite easy to see that the article was written to make you crap your pants. The media outlet either:

1) Didnt read the study in full.
2) Purposely picked the information that would get the most clicks.

NBC could have written a full analysis of what the study actually implied (like the Washington Post did), but instead they wrote it in a way that is easy to draw conclusions about what it actually meant knowing that people are too lazy to read scientific studies. Thats how to sell clicks and thats why I go back to my original point: this is why I hate the media (or the 24 hour news cycle at least). You can write click bait by still telling the truth. Its all about what you omit.

[Wittgenstein's Ghost]

Originally Posted by As Above So Below...

Its quite easy to see that the article was written to make you crap your pants. The media outlet either:

1) Didnt read the study in full.
2) Purposely picked the information that would get the most clicks.

NBC could have written a full analysis of what the study actually implied (like the Washington Post did), but instead they wrote it in a way that is easy to draw conclusions about what it actually meant knowing that people are too lazy to read scientific studies. Thats how to sell clicks and thats why I go back to my original point: this is why I hate the media (or the 24 hour news cycle at least). You can write click bait by still telling the truth. Its all about what you omit.

I seriously don't know how you read the article and came away with that conclusion.

[CDContribuitor]

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

I seriously don't know how you read the article and came away with that conclusion.

My read of the article aligned with "As above's" read and conclusion.

[As Above So Below...]

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

I seriously don't know how you read the article and came away with that conclusion.

Omission of data.

This mutation does not increase its ability to be lethal. The study showed the opposite actually (even if it wasnt a huge drop). Then factor in the still relatively low number of D614G mutations that the entire study is based on. Then factor in that virologists have come out and said its unlikely to stand in the way of the effectiveness of a vaccine. One quote stood out to me in another article:

“The virus is still so similar now to the initial sequence that there isn’t really much reason to think the differences will matter in terms of vaccine.".

This information changes the scope of how the information can be processed. It means that vital information about the study was left out and media outlets (left and right) do that to shift sentiment.

This isnt anything towards you. I just find media outlets easy to see through.

[Wittgenstein's Ghost]

Originally Posted by As Above So Below...

Omission of data.

This mutation does not increase its ability to be lethal.

It didn't say it did.

Originally Posted by As Above So Below...

The study showed the opposite actually (even if it wasnt a huge drop). Then factor in the still relatively low number of D614G mutations that the entire study is based on. Then factor in that virologists have come out and said its unlikely to stand in the way of the effectiveness of a vaccine. One quote stood out to me in another article:

“The virus is still so similar now to the initial sequence that there isn’t really much reason to think the differences will matter in terms of vaccine.".

This information changes the scope of how the information can be processed. It means that vital information about the study was left out and media outlets (left and right) do that to shift sentiment.

This isnt anything towards you. I just find media outlets easy to see through.

I think you should read the summary from the actual study. Here's the last part:

To date we have identified fourteen mutations in Spike that are accumulating...Each one is evaluated for evidence of positive selection, and the implications of the mutation are explored through structural modeling. The mutation Spike D614G is of urgent concern; it began spreading in Europe in early February, and when introduced to new regions it rapidly becomes the dominant form. Also, we present evidence of recombination between locally circulating strains, indicative of multiple strain infections. These finding have important implications for SARS-CoV-2 transmission, pathogenesis and immune interventions


This was an article about this particular study. I don't think the NBC article overstepped based on what the study itself says. Maybe they overstated things a bit regarding the severity of the risk to vaccine hopes, but the study authors themselves called these mutations "of urgent concern" and said they have "important implications" for immune interventions.

I think you're trying to stake your flag in the wrong spot here. I agree there is a lot of political motivation in some media outlets, but I think this article described this study pretty well. They even linked directly to it in the second paragraph, and they mentioned multiple times that it hasn't passed peer review yet.

[CHRockwell]

Interesting data I came across with the work I do.

SO they looked at patients who had Covid-19 with 100% absolute certainty and they then wanted to look at the various tests to see how well the tests could detect it.

They took BAL (Bronch Lavage) samples and out of 15 samples 14 of them (93%) detected Covid-19. That is pretty good. Here is the rest

BAL- 15 samples, 14 positive test (93%)
Sputum (saliva and mucus coughed up) - 104 samples, 75 positive tests (72%)
Nasal Swab - 8 samples, 5 positive tests (63%)
Brush biopsy - 13 samples, 6 positive test (46%)
Pharyngeal swab - 398 samples, 126 positive tests (32%)
Feces - 153 samples, 44 positive tests (29%)
Blood - 307 samples, 3 positive tests (1%)
Urine - 72 samples, 0 positive tests (0%)

[elan]

Yay, the Blue Angels flyover was awesome.

[DPatel304]

Originally Posted by elan

Yay, the Blue Angels flyover was awesome.

Agreed!

Special thanks to the Frontline workers. Hope everyone in the DFW area (and around the world) are staying as safe and healthy as they are able!!

[jiping]

Cuomo says it's 'shocking' most new coronavirus hospitalizations are people who had been staying home
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/06/ny-g...ying-home.html

https://twitter.com/6sqft/status/1258073609148432384

[As Above So Below...]

Originally Posted by jiping

Cuomo says it's 'shocking' most new coronavirus hospitalizations are people who had been staying home
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/06/ny-g...ying-home.html

https://twitter.com/6sqft/status/1258073609148432384

From the article: "He also said a majority of the cases in New York City are minorities, with nearly half being African American or Hispanic."

29.2% of NYC is Hispanic.
21.8% of NYC is Black.

Thats 51% total. So half of NYC's cases should statistically be black or Hispanic.

How is that noteworthy? If 65-75% of cases were black and Hispanic. THAT would be noteworthy. This is statistically what it should be.

Im also not surprised by the finding. People live in very dense quarters up there. There are more opportunities to get it by just staying near your home.