No Excuses

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by No Excuses

  1. Well if the culture is criminal in nature, then “reviewing the culture” is appropriate. Lol
  2. Change parties Larry. Wasting your time in the cesspool that is the GOP.
  3. Bezos having his newspaper nuke Snyder out of ownership and then buying the team would be an all time alpha move. Please let it happen:
  4. Give it till August until Trump goes begging to Steve Bannon again.
  5. Dem voters across the country have pushed for and enacted change from Medicaid expansion to marijuana legalization. The last Dem president oversaw massive changes to the healthcare system and a broad expansion of civil rights for many Americans. It’s kind of silly to suggest that the next potential Democratic President won’t be enacting broad social and economic change when he will be inheriting a broken economy and social order. Typically, the opposite of all your predictions come true so I expect Biden to govern till 2028.
  6. As always it's projection. The GOP has a dismal view of the world because they think everyone behaves as they do. Unfortunately, they've found out that there are enough dopes in this country who are completely detached from reality.
  7. A lot of recent publications have shown that people build up immunity to the novel coronavirus in the short term at least. We see this in the global data as well because reinfection at large enough numbers is not being observed anywhere in the world at the moment. Ultimately, unless evidendence to the contrary becomes available, there is no data out there that shows humans aren’t building immunity to the virus. The fact that most people recover and that you can detect antibodies against the virus in their plasma tells us that immunity is happening. We are making monoclonal antibody therapies based on the antibodies that are being identified in recovered patients. We are also seeing cellular immunity with virus specific T cells which suggests the immune response is quite robust: How long immunity lasts before reinfection is possible again will unfortunately not become known until we start seeing actual reinfection cases either in the next few months or possibly next year and beyond.
  8. Neutering the CDC and writing op-Ed’s against your own infectious disease expert. I have nothing but bad thoughts for the losers who elected this man and for those who keep supporting this evil party.
  9. There are a lot of peer reviewed studies on the immune response to the virus that show people generate antibodies that have a strong response to the virus. Here is a review article that summarizes several publications on identified immune responses in recovered patients: The Vox article is being widely slammed across the scientific community because it’s completely inaccurate in how it portrays the story of the virus and the immune response people generate/herd immunity.
  10. From what I understand, the 1% mortality rate accounts for both under reporting of deaths by looking at excess mortality and by accounting for serosurvey estimates.
  11. The article doesn't have to "reach any conclusions" for it to be bad journalism. It creates a narrative that is not supported by data. In the middle of a pandemic, that serves no purpose other than scaring people. He's also not synthesizing known coronavirus studies, because there is a good amount of data on people actually generating immunity to the virus, from animal models to actual humans who have been infected. Telling people right now that "herd immunity is not possible" is god awful messaging. Herd immunity through community transmission is not feasible. Herd immunity through mass vaccinations is possible. Achieving herd immunity through vaccination programs is our only way out of this. If a bunch of bozos decide to write articles right now, like some of the ones you quoted, you can reasonably expect that some segments of the public will not heed advice when medical professionals start campaigning for mass vaccination programs to achieve herd immunity. And the question at heart, "can people be reinfected" does have uncertainty. But the uncertainty isn't whether people are getting reinfected right now. Except possibly some outliers (and there's extreme skepticism warranted even for this batch), people are not being reinfected at the moment. Based on our understanding of coronaviruses, natural immunity will go away at some point and reinfection will be possible. We don't know what the point of diminished immunity is for this virus. But it hasn't arrived yet and there is zero reason for any outlet to be pushing questionable narratives, based on little evidence but personal hunches, to a public that is already scared.
  12. Here's the article's headline: "My patient caught Covid-19 twice. So long to herd immunity hopes?" No, is it not "so long to herd immunity" because one patient was reinfected. Here's the most egregious overstatement in the whole piece: It's complete nonsense and not backed by any robust data. The severity of one patients condition does not indicate that when you don't even have evidence that it is in fact reinfection. Here's another completely factless statement. There is absolutely certainty of some personal immunity. How long that immunity lasts is a valid question, but with millions of cases around the world there has been no significant observation of reinfection anywhere. We've already had reports of "reinfection" from South Korea that later turned out to be prolonged infections, with the exact signature of the one patient outlined in this article. Recovery and then a second bout of illness. Amongst millions of people, you might end up in a situation where some don't even mount a short term immune response. Is it responsible to publish op-eds about these people, calling into question the broader idea of herd immunity or even personal immunity? Absolutely not. The entire article is a masterclass on terrible scientific journalism. You take an almost irrelevant sample size, develop a narrative and push it under the cover of "broader scientific concern". Yes there is concern on the length of immunity, and it will inform how vaccination is considered. No, there is really not much concern in the scientific community that people will not develop immunity to the virus. We already know they do, it's the in global data where reinfection is not observed. When that starts to change, we'll see it in epidemiological data, not in a handful of cases that are extreme outliers.
  13. You can generate a stronger immune response from vaccines than you normally might through infection with a live virus. I remain skeptical of studies that suggest immunity may be gone in a few weeks by just looking at antibody levels. The body will generate multiple antibodies against the virus, some that will decrease over time faster than others. It’s entirely unclear if the antibodies that produce the strongest response against the virus are actually decreasing in significant enough numbers within a few weeks of time. And most studies also don’t account for the role of T cells, which we know also mount a long term immune response to the virus. The immune system has an array of tools it uses to fight it. Ultimately, the strongest data we need to see on immunity will come from within communities where the virus continues to circulate. We are yet to see a strong signature of reinfection anywhere in the world. It is based on serological surveys. For instance, spread in NYC itself possibly infected 20% of its population. We know quite well that cases are likely undercounted by about 4x.
  14. The article takes a sample size of mostly one patient and one doctor and attempts to portray a phenomena that is simply not being observed almost anywhere in the world right now. You can’t question the concept of herd immunity or the biological immune response to the virus because one person may have been reinfected (it’s not even confirmed). The virus is so widespread around the world that if reinfection was a serious phenomena, we would see clear data on it. There were some early reports out of South Korea about this which turned out to be just prolonged illnesses. And there is a good amount of data out there that the immune system does launch a robust response against the novel coronavirus with signatures of potential long-term immunity. I saw this absent in the article. And even if the article is going to mention “well some viral illnesses are prone to reinfection in short periods of time”, it’s probably good to also mention that the closest analog to the current virus, the 2002 SARS coronavirus produced immunity that lasted years in most patients. Getting the right information to the public on immunity matters because as soon as a vaccine is released, you don’t want people thinking “well I read articles that said herd immunity isn’t possible and the immune response is weak”. It’s not a balanced article, it’s pure and simple fear mongering disguised as journalism.
  15. I really dislike articles like this because they identify a phenomena without any clear context of its probability. I highly doubt reinfection in a short time span is a real possibility for the vast vast majority of humans. Finding a handful of cases isn’t surprising because some people will have biological quirks that are very rare but might make them more susceptible to reinfection. Vox does really bad science journalism.
  16. The WHO said it’s likely undiagnosed COVID-19. But they don’t exactly have much credibility these days.
  17. Politicians worth their elected seats would be gearing up for the easiest and fastest impeachment trial right now. Every Republican Senator needs to be on the record defending this.
  18. Can anyone point to the origin of “The Redskins name was honoring Native Americans” talking point? Comes across as a wholly disingenuous claim for the franchise that was last to integrate and was basically forced to do it.
  19. Not only that, but today's rulings basically mean that not only can ultra-conservative states go ahead with religious charter schools funded by the public, these schools also do not have to comply with federal civil rights guidelines.
  20. Culture War BS is all the GOP has. There is literally nothing else to their agenda at this point.
  21. They are not changing the name because it hurt people’s feelings. The team has shown for many years that it absolutely does not care about public opinion about really anything, let alone their feelings about the name.
  22. The name is going to change since corporate sponsors have already pulled money out of the franchise or are on the verge of doing so. Some of you still in denial are unfortunately going to learn a brutal, cold truth about living in a capitalist country. Money talks and no one cares about your feelings.
  23. The can change the name to the Pink Ponies and I wouldn’t care. The adolescent attachment to a silly name from a bygone era by adults is fundamentally weird. This franchise has needed an image reboot for quite some time. Doesn’t really matter how we arrive at it.
  24. Apparently a bottom exists for the worst people in America.