CoronaBro Meltdown/SARS-Covid-19 Spitballing Thread

[michigancat]

I'm watching what I missed on the congressional hearing, Murphy did a good job pressing Fauci and Redfield for federal guidance while also doing anti-trump stuff. those guys deserve a lot of blame

[catastrophe]

The number of tests needed is proportional to how effectively they’re used through contact tracing and such. Also, as time goes on antibody tests will probably be at least as important than tests for COVID-19.

[sonofdaxjones]

Was Tony questioned about his funding of the GOC research in the Wuhan Lab?

Next . . . posted without comment or agreement/disagreement:

https://twitter.com/justin_hart/status/1260235346387718146?s=20

[star seed 7]

Haha, love when daqx and bqqkie post the same thing at the same time

[sonofdaxjones]

Haha, love when daqx and bqqkie post the same thing at the same time

Yeah Useful Idiot .9, that never happens.

I love watching Useful Idiot .9 be a weirdo.

[star seed 7]

You're right, you were 7 minutes slower old man 

[DQ12]

so far they're only talking about vaccines and therapeutics, we're mumped.

Aren't vaccines and therapeutics really important?  If we can remove the teeth of this thing through a vaccine or therapeutic, then there's no real reason to trace contacts.

[michigancat]

so far they're only talking about vaccines and therapeutics, we're mumped.

Vaccines and therapeutics seem like they're really important.

they're long term solutions that distract from actions we can take right now.

[DQ12]

so far they're only talking about vaccines and therapeutics, we're mumped.

Vaccines and therapeutics seem like they're really important.

they're long term solutions that distract from actions we can take right now.

Developing/Finding a therapeutic doesn't really seem like it necessarily needs to be that far off.    Granted, that's more of a scientific approach rather than the practical/political one of contract tracing, etc., but finding a good therapeutic is potentially a wholesale solution -- that deserves attention, imo.

[sonofdaxjones]

You're right, you were 7 minutes slower old man 

#stillaweirdo

[michigancat]

Developing/Finding a therapeutic doesn't really seem like it necessarily needs to be that far off.    Granted, that's more of a scientific approach rather than the practical/political one of contract tracing, etc., but finding a good therapeutic is potentially a wholesale solution -- that deserves attention, imo.

it's an unknown for sure. Why is contact tracing a "political" approach? If anything focusing on therapeutics is more political because it makes the pharma lobby happy.

[DQ12]

Developing/Finding a therapeutic doesn't really seem like it necessarily needs to be that far off.    Granted, that's more of a scientific approach rather than the practical/political one of contract tracing, etc., but finding a good therapeutic is potentially a wholesale solution -- that deserves attention, imo.

it's an unknown for sure. Why is contact tracing a "political" approach? If anything focusing on therapeutics is more political because it makes the pharma lobby happy.

Because politicians are the ones that enact the contact tracing policy, as opposed to scientists who create/discover pharmaceutical responses.  I only used those labels to say that it probably makes more sense for politicians to be focused mostly on things they can control, e.g. like contact tracing, funding solutions, etc., rather than have them up there waxing poetic about pharmaceuticals (if that's what they're doing...I'm not watching).

[michigancat]

Developing/Finding a therapeutic doesn't really seem like it necessarily needs to be that far off.    Granted, that's more of a scientific approach rather than the practical/political one of contract tracing, etc., but finding a good therapeutic is potentially a wholesale solution -- that deserves attention, imo.

it's an unknown for sure. Why is contact tracing a "political" approach? If anything focusing on therapeutics is more political because it makes the pharma lobby happy.

Because politicians are the ones that enact the contact tracing policy, as opposed to scientists who create/discover pharmaceutical responses. 

well I would argue that the CDC could and should be expanding contact tracing that is already in place with support for politicians. You don't need new legislation, you need a plan and funding.

[DQ12]

Developing/Finding a therapeutic doesn't really seem like it necessarily needs to be that far off.    Granted, that's more of a scientific approach rather than the practical/political one of contract tracing, etc., but finding a good therapeutic is potentially a wholesale solution -- that deserves attention, imo.

it's an unknown for sure. Why is contact tracing a "political" approach? If anything focusing on therapeutics is more political because it makes the pharma lobby happy.

Because politicians are the ones that enact the contact tracing policy, as opposed to scientists who create/discover pharmaceutical responses. 

well I would argue that the CDC could and should be expanding contact tracing that is already in place with support for politicians. You don't need new legislation, you need a plan and funding.

I don't disagree that they should be exploring contact tracing.  All I'm saying is that pharmaceutical solutions shouldn't be discounted.  We're not really disagreeing here.

[Phil Titola]

Developing/Finding a therapeutic doesn't really seem like it necessarily needs to be that far off.    Granted, that's more of a scientific approach rather than the practical/political one of contract tracing, etc., but finding a good therapeutic is potentially a wholesale solution -- that deserves attention, imo.

it's an unknown for sure. Why is contact tracing a "political" approach? If anything focusing on therapeutics is more political because it makes the pharma lobby happy.

Because politicians are the ones that enact the contact tracing policy, as opposed to scientists who create/discover pharmaceutical responses. 

well I would argue that the CDC could and should be expanding contact tracing that is already in place with support for politicians. You don't need new legislation, you need a plan and funding.

I feel like Warren asked that too.  What is the plan, when are we getting a plan, and how can we in congress help fund that plan.

[sonofdaxjones]

I can't figure out why cRusty is so fixated with contact tracing, when as a Covid-19 testee in the early weeks of the outbreak I was provided a contact tracing document and told to fill it out and be prepared to discuss it with the State Department of Public Health should my test be positive.

The level of testing, the size of the country both population wise and geographic wise renders contact tracing meaningless at this point in time until they can do millions of tests.

I know it's not a narrative that anyone wants to hear, but no country in the world is currently capable of testing hundreds of millions of people in a timely matter . .   and the constant comparisons to smaller countries, particularly small island nations is both hilariously misguided and unhelpful.    Particularly when you factor the homogeneous make up of the population in most instances.

Germany is also seeing it's case load go back  up . . . and uh, it was the German Federation States who have forced the reopening, apparently they are keenly aware that they were headed down the path of economic ruin as well. 

We'll be battling the economic outcomes far after the virus has been brought under some semblance of control.   

Maybe we can get cheap labor out of the Covid-19 internment camps that cRusty wants . . . put them to work as soon as they got off the train in Gulag cRusty.

[michigancat]

Developing/Finding a therapeutic doesn't really seem like it necessarily needs to be that far off.    Granted, that's more of a scientific approach rather than the practical/political one of contract tracing, etc., but finding a good therapeutic is potentially a wholesale solution -- that deserves attention, imo.

it's an unknown for sure. Why is contact tracing a "political" approach? If anything focusing on therapeutics is more political because it makes the pharma lobby happy.

Because politicians are the ones that enact the contact tracing policy, as opposed to scientists who create/discover pharmaceutical responses. 

well I would argue that the CDC could and should be expanding contact tracing that is already in place with support for politicians. You don't need new legislation, you need a plan and funding.

I don't disagree that they should be exploring contact tracing.  All I'm saying is that pharmaceutical solutions shouldn't be discounted.  We're not really disagreeing here.

my original post was implying we're mumped if pharmaceuticals are the only solution we're focused on. It sounds like a few Senators asked for detailed reopening plans, contact tracing plans, and a little about quarantine and isolation but most of what I saw was related to pharmaceuticals or Trump gotchas. it was interesting though and I'll watch more.

[DQ12]

Developing/Finding a therapeutic doesn't really seem like it necessarily needs to be that far off.    Granted, that's more of a scientific approach rather than the practical/political one of contract tracing, etc., but finding a good therapeutic is potentially a wholesale solution -- that deserves attention, imo.

it's an unknown for sure. Why is contact tracing a "political" approach? If anything focusing on therapeutics is more political because it makes the pharma lobby happy.

Because politicians are the ones that enact the contact tracing policy, as opposed to scientists who create/discover pharmaceutical responses. 

well I would argue that the CDC could and should be expanding contact tracing that is already in place with support for politicians. You don't need new legislation, you need a plan and funding.

I don't disagree that they should be exploring contact tracing.  All I'm saying is that pharmaceutical solutions shouldn't be discounted.  We're not really disagreeing here.

my original post was implying we're mumped if pharmaceuticals are the only solution we're focused on. It sounds like a few Senators asked for detailed reopening plans, contact tracing plans, and a little about quarantine and isolation but most of what I saw was related to pharmaceuticals or Trump gotchas. it was interesting though and I'll watch more.

I don't think it should be exclusively focused on pharmaceuticals, but I do think it should be partly focused on pharmaceuticals.

I think we're probably more mumped if our only plan was quarantine, contact tracing, etc.

[Phil Titola]

Developing/Finding a therapeutic doesn't really seem like it necessarily needs to be that far off.    Granted, that's more of a scientific approach rather than the practical/political one of contract tracing, etc., but finding a good therapeutic is potentially a wholesale solution -- that deserves attention, imo.

it's an unknown for sure. Why is contact tracing a "political" approach? If anything focusing on therapeutics is more political because it makes the pharma lobby happy.

Because politicians are the ones that enact the contact tracing policy, as opposed to scientists who create/discover pharmaceutical responses. 

well I would argue that the CDC could and should be expanding contact tracing that is already in place with support for politicians. You don't need new legislation, you need a plan and funding.

I don't disagree that they should be exploring contact tracing.  All I'm saying is that pharmaceutical solutions shouldn't be discounted.  We're not really disagreeing here.

I'm still of the belief is that is what will get us out of this.  Between more testing to isolate people, convalescent plasma, repurposing old drugs, and/or monoclonal antibodies, I don't think we ever get to require a vaccine to get out of this. I think a vaccine will be created and used due to how fast we're developing it though.  I've read like 10 studies so basically I'm an expert.

[treysolid]

Developing/Finding a therapeutic doesn't really seem like it necessarily needs to be that far off.    Granted, that's more of a scientific approach rather than the practical/political one of contract tracing, etc., but finding a good therapeutic is potentially a wholesale solution -- that deserves attention, imo.

it's an unknown for sure. Why is contact tracing a "political" approach? If anything focusing on therapeutics is more political because it makes the pharma lobby happy.

Because politicians are the ones that enact the contact tracing policy, as opposed to scientists who create/discover pharmaceutical responses. 

well I would argue that the CDC could and should be expanding contact tracing that is already in place with support for politicians. You don't need new legislation, you need a plan and funding.

I don't disagree that they should be exploring contact tracing.  All I'm saying is that pharmaceutical solutions shouldn't be discounted.  We're not really disagreeing here.

my original post was implying we're mumped if pharmaceuticals are the only solution we're focused on. It sounds like a few Senators asked for detailed reopening plans, contact tracing plans, and a little about quarantine and isolation but most of what I saw was related to pharmaceuticals or Trump gotchas. it was interesting though and I'll watch more.

I don't think it should be exclusively focused on pharmaceuticals, but I do think it should be partly focused on pharmaceuticals.

I think we're probably more mumped if our only plan was quarantine, contact tracing, etc.

I think you're grossly underestimating the amount of time it takes to develop a drug and confirm it's safety and efficacy.

[DQ12]

Developing/Finding a therapeutic doesn't really seem like it necessarily needs to be that far off.    Granted, that's more of a scientific approach rather than the practical/political one of contract tracing, etc., but finding a good therapeutic is potentially a wholesale solution -- that deserves attention, imo.

it's an unknown for sure. Why is contact tracing a "political" approach? If anything focusing on therapeutics is more political because it makes the pharma lobby happy.

Because politicians are the ones that enact the contact tracing policy, as opposed to scientists who create/discover pharmaceutical responses. 

well I would argue that the CDC could and should be expanding contact tracing that is already in place with support for politicians. You don't need new legislation, you need a plan and funding.

I don't disagree that they should be exploring contact tracing.  All I'm saying is that pharmaceutical solutions shouldn't be discounted.  We're not really disagreeing here.

my original post was implying we're mumped if pharmaceuticals are the only solution we're focused on. It sounds like a few Senators asked for detailed reopening plans, contact tracing plans, and a little about quarantine and isolation but most of what I saw was related to pharmaceuticals or Trump gotchas. it was interesting though and I'll watch more.

I don't think it should be exclusively focused on pharmaceuticals, but I do think it should be partly focused on pharmaceuticals.

I think we're probably more mumped if our only plan was quarantine, contact tracing, etc.

I think you're grossly underestimating the amount of time it takes to develop a drug and confirm it's safety and efficacy.

I mean, patients are currently being treated with Remdesivir.

[michigancat]

I think you're grossly underestimating the amount of time it takes to develop a drug and confirm it's safety and efficacy.

I mean, patients are currently being treated with Remdesivir.

and it's doing nothing to slow the spread

[treysolid]

Developing/Finding a therapeutic doesn't really seem like it necessarily needs to be that far off.    Granted, that's more of a scientific approach rather than the practical/political one of contract tracing, etc., but finding a good therapeutic is potentially a wholesale solution -- that deserves attention, imo.

it's an unknown for sure. Why is contact tracing a "political" approach? If anything focusing on therapeutics is more political because it makes the pharma lobby happy.

Because politicians are the ones that enact the contact tracing policy, as opposed to scientists who create/discover pharmaceutical responses. 

well I would argue that the CDC could and should be expanding contact tracing that is already in place with support for politicians. You don't need new legislation, you need a plan and funding.

I don't disagree that they should be exploring contact tracing.  All I'm saying is that pharmaceutical solutions shouldn't be discounted.  We're not really disagreeing here.

my original post was implying we're mumped if pharmaceuticals are the only solution we're focused on. It sounds like a few Senators asked for detailed reopening plans, contact tracing plans, and a little about quarantine and isolation but most of what I saw was related to pharmaceuticals or Trump gotchas. it was interesting though and I'll watch more.

I don't think it should be exclusively focused on pharmaceuticals, but I do think it should be partly focused on pharmaceuticals.

I think we're probably more mumped if our only plan was quarantine, contact tracing, etc.

I think you're grossly underestimating the amount of time it takes to develop a drug and confirm it's safety and efficacy.

I mean, patients are currently being treated with Remdesivir.

Because it was already developed as an Ebola drug (and failed). The vast majority of repurposed drugs are going to have limited efficacy against a new disease, as evidenced by the fact that remdesivir doesn't look all that effective either.

https://www.statnews.com/2020/05/11/inside-the-nihs-controversial-decision-to-stop-its-big-remdesivir-study/

[DQ12]

I think you're grossly underestimating the amount of time it takes to develop a drug and confirm it's safety and efficacy.

I mean, patients are currently being treated with Remdesivir.

and it's doing nothing to slow the spread

Yeah but the spread itself isn't really the problem.  People getting really sick and dying is the problem.  If we [Remdesivir/other drug] turns this thing into the common cold or something and we can make that available, then we have our wholesale solution and we can get pumped up for CFB season.

[CHONGS]

I thought we already had it and big pharma was suppressing it?