Pacfanweb said:

---

Daviewolf83 said:

---

Mormad - While you are around, I did have a few questions that hopefully you can answer.


3. Have you seen anything in recent medical papers to suggest why kids and people under the age of 24 seem to have much better outcomes than people in the older age groups? Could it be that people under the age of 24 likely have fewer pre-existing conditions than older age groups or is there something else that makes the virus less fatal for them?

---

Of course Mormad knows more about this than the rest of us, but I'd think that the reason young people are less susceptible to Covid is the same reason they are less susceptible to all other viruses and sicknesses:

They are young. Stronger and more robust immune symptoms, and they have fewer things wrong with them that might make them have a difficult time fighting it off.

---

Tuan2020 said:

---

Corona virus is currently still very strong outbreak. One or two to three years from now there will be a vaccine



Friv2Games | Friv8 | friv2021

---

Wayland said:

---

Mormad said:

---

Saw data today suggesting kids less than 20 are half as susceptible to infection after exposure and only 21% in the study showed symptoms vs 69% in older adults. Nothing groundbreaking as to WHY this is observed.

I have serious doubts that a decision to focus on testing those that are most likely to test positive is to justify the gov's next steps. I think this type of thinking is where I deviate most from those here.

---

I don't know that it is some sort of master nefarious plot. Cooper doesn't come off as a 'numbers guy' to me and by his reaction to some of the questions, I think a lot of what is going on is over his head (data related). He is a politician and has that working against him.

But I do know that the state is hiding numbers that they have at their fingertips.

It is like when dealing with children. When you ask simple questions and they respond with oddly vague answers, it doesn't mean they are trying to hide something but it gives you that sense. There is no reason to hide the information they have. It certainly shows some concerning trends in some areas but it also shows things are relatively stable in other areas. Especially hearing how questions on data are answered at briefings knowing they have concrete answers regarding numbers and they feign to be uncertain.

At this point I have less and less faith in the overall hospitalizations because of what appears to be inconsistencies in how 'non-critical' cases are being counted between hospital groups. And oddly disproportionate 'suspected' COVID counts coming out of 1 or 2 hospital groups.

ICU is a different story and I think paints a much clearer picture. And that picture isn't improving from a total ICU admits scenario. So there should be hyper focus there. Again, along side daily admits/recoveries so we can see the flow not just the surface.

My take is DHHS is just bad with data. Cohen, I think, is actually better than most but tries to dumb it down too much and explains it to the media like they are children (they are). She should talk past them and put it out to the people themselves to understand.

---

Mormad said:

---

Saw data today suggesting kids less than 20 are half as susceptible to infection after exposure and only 21% in the study showed symptoms vs 69% in older adults. Nothing groundbreaking as to WHY this is observed.

I have serious doubts that a decision to focus on testing those that are most likely to test positive is to justify the gov's next steps. I think this type of thinking is where I deviate most from those here.

---

TheStorm said:

---

Mormad said:

---

Saw data today suggesting kids less than 20 are half as susceptible to infection after exposure and only 21% in the study showed symptoms vs 69% in older adults. Nothing groundbreaking as to WHY this is observed.

I have serious doubts that a decision to focus on testing those that are most likely to test positive is to justify the gov's next steps. I think this type of thinking is where I deviate most from those here.

---

This is really good information. Thank you for sharing it.

Would you be able to venture into whether Elementary School age children look the same as the Middle School age and older ranges? They are probably that one single demographic that still really isn't getting out into the mainstream public venues as much as others (I'm sure we know that Middle School, High School, College age are all back out doing whatever they can within their circle of friends).

---

Mormad said:

---

Ok, that's twice now one of you has mentioned the MMR. You and PackMom. I honestly know nothing about it in regards to C19. But now I'm really interested. I'll see what I can dig up, bud. Good stuff.

---

Quote:

---

SARS-CoV2 Spike glycoproteins are class I viral membrane fusion proteinsthatshare structural similarities with the Fusion proteins from both measles and mumps viruses.The Macro domains of SARS-CoV-2and rubella virus share 29% amino acid sequence identity.Interestingly, the residues conserved in the SARS-CoV-2 and rubella Macro domains include surface-exposed residues and are presentin the attenuated rubella virus used in the MMR vaccine.We identified at a population level that both older populations and males are both more likely to die from COVID-19, and less likely to be seropositive for rubella-specific immunity, based on historical vaccination programmes of all three countries consideredin this report.Finally, the hypothesis that this macro domain could be recognised by antibodies raised against rubella was supported by data that demonstrated that patients who have SARS-CoV2 infection had raisedlevels of rubella IgG to a level in keeping with secondary rubella infection. Taken together, we suggest that MMR will not prevent COVID-19 infection but could potentially reduce poor outcome. To conclude whether MMR vaccination can improve the outcomes from Covid-19 infection, a study using individual based data to compare MMR immunity status in the affected population is warranted.

---

Wayland said:

---

Are you guys talking about this stuff? I assume since nothing came of it in the last 2 months it was abandoned.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.10.20053207v1.full.pdf

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341354165_MMR_Vaccine_Appears_to_Confer_Strong_Protection_from_COVID-19_Few_Deaths_from_SARS-CoV-2_in_Highly_Vaccinated_Populations

---

Wayland said:

---

This was the first time I had really looked through the Cambridge stuff. The secondary rubella infection IgG is fascinating. Again, not that I put a lot of stock in stuff of the internet these days. But it is cool to think about in theory if any of this proves true.

---

Quote:

---

6/16/2020 Morning DHHS update (as of 12:00pm)

NC Cases
45,853
NC Deaths
1154
Currently Hospitalized
829 <- 85% still stable since increased from 73% yesterday reporting
Completed Tests
651,421

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
723 Deaths are now Congregate (+17)
97 Deaths are now Unknown Setting (+7)
+36 Deaths Overall since yesterday.

334 Deaths assumed General Population (+12)
796 Congregate and Unknown Setting. (+24)

193 Congregate Facilities now have an outbreak. (+6)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WRAL is at 1196* and NandO is at 1169 deaths

751 positive cases over 12,942 new tests. 5.8% positive rate.

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

Well, I've got a interesting story to tell. My family had a gathering for a birthday a couple weeks ago. 3 days later, my aunt had a head cold, got tested and was positive for Covid19. They were all together for hours at the gathering, ages 15-82. All got tested Friday and got their results today. Noone tested positive from the people that were at the party thankfully. My aunt is doing fine now but maybe it's not as contagious as previously thought. Every body there over the age of 35 had pre-existing conditions but thankfully, none contracted the virus.

---

Wayland said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

Well, I've got a interesting story to tell. My family had a gathering for a birthday a couple weeks ago. 3 days later, my aunt had a head cold, got tested and was positive for Covid19. They were all together for hours at the gathering, ages 15-82. All got tested Friday and got their results today. Noone tested positive from the people that were at the party thankfully. My aunt is doing fine now but maybe it's not as contagious as previously thought. Every body there over the age of 35 had pre-existing conditions but thankfully, none contracted the virus.

---

Glad to hear of the negatives. Hope for continued health.

Do you mind sharing details of the gathering? Was it inside, outside, combination of the two? Curious since there is such an element of chance in these situations. I know my family while being 'social' have focused primarily on outdoor activities.

---

Daviewolf83 said:

---

Wayland said:

---

This was the first time I had really looked through the Cambridge stuff. The secondary rubella infection IgG is fascinating. Again, not that I put a lot of stock in stuff of the internet these days. But it is cool to think about in theory if any of this proves true.

---

I got the MMR vaccine in 1971 (the year is was developed).

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

Well, I've got a interesting story to tell. My family had a gathering for a birthday a couple weeks ago. 3 days later, my aunt had a head cold, got tested and was positive for Covid19. They were all together for hours at the gathering, ages 15-82. All got tested Friday and got their results today. Noone tested positive from the people that were at the party thankfully. My aunt is doing fine now but maybe it's not as contagious as previously thought. Every body there over the age of 35 had pre-existing conditions but thankfully, none contracted the virus.

---

TheStorm said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

Well, I've got a interesting story to tell. My family had a gathering for a birthday a couple weeks ago. 3 days later, my aunt had a head cold, got tested and was positive for Covid19. They were all together for hours at the gathering, ages 15-82. All got tested Friday and got their results today. Noone tested positive from the people that were at the party thankfully. My aunt is doing fine now but maybe it's not as contagious as previously thought. Every body there over the age of 35 had pre-existing conditions but thankfully, none contracted the virus.

---

Glad to hear that your aunt is doing well and glad to hear that no one else turned positive. Please keep us posted on her recovery.

---

GuerrillaPack said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

Well, I've got a interesting story to tell. My family had a gathering for a birthday a couple weeks ago. 3 days later, my aunt had a head cold, got tested and was positive for Covid19. They were all together for hours at the gathering, ages 15-82. All got tested Friday and got their results today. Noone tested positive from the people that were at the party thankfully. My aunt is doing fine now but maybe it's not as contagious as previously thought. Every body there over the age of 35 had pre-existing conditions but thankfully, none contracted the virus.

---

Glad to hear that your aunt is doing well and glad to hear that no one else turned positive. Please keep us posted on her recovery.

---

Will do. It's crazy how much you think about when people you care about are waiting for results for something like this. I know GP will say it's fake but it sure gets real when it hits that Clair to home. Have lost 3 people I've known for years to this but family is a different ballgame.

---

To be clear, I'm not denying that people are dying. And I'm certainly not trying to be insensitive to anyone who has died.

What I'm saying is that I dispute the cause of many of these deaths that are being classifed as "from covid-19". I think many of these people who are dying (again, mostly elderly and those with pre-existing health problems) are actually dying as the result of pneumonia, heart disease, the flu and other other "traditional" illnesses or health problems. But then they are doing a "test" for "covid-19" and if they say that the person "had covid-19" recently, then they classify the death as "caused" by Covid-19. But that's not necessarily the case. They may have had a cold/flu virus recently, but that is not necessarily what caused their death.

And again, the "test" they are using to see if someone has covid-19 is extremely suspect, and unreliable....as I understand. Can anyone tell me how this test supposedly works?

By the way, I've heard that the number of deaths classified from heart attack, pneumonia and the flu have conveniently gone way down over the last few months. How could that be? Because deaths from those things are (incorrectly) being classified as "caused by covid-19".

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

You're insensitive every single time you come on here ranting and raving about the "fake" virus. Just an FYI, and not that you give a damn, my aunt was perfectly healthy before this outside of being over 60 and having minimal blood pressure issues and she got it. She actually got a "fake" virus. Insensitive is what you are and what you've always been.

---

GuerrillaPack said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

You're insensitive every single time you come on here ranting and raving about the "fake" virus. Just an FYI, and not that you give a damn, my aunt was perfectly healthy before this outside of being over 60 and having minimal blood pressure issues and she got it. She actually got a "fake" virus. Insensitive is what you are and what you've always been.

---

Honest question for you or anyone....how does this test to see if someone "has covid-19" work? And how reliable truly is it?

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

GuerrillaPack said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

You're insensitive every single time you come on here ranting and raving about the "fake" virus. Just an FYI, and not that you give a damn, my aunt was perfectly healthy before this outside of being over 60 and having minimal blood pressure issues and she got it. She actually got a "fake" virus. Insensitive is what you are and what you've always been.

---

Honest question for you or anyone....how does this test to see if someone "has covid-19" work? And how reliable truly is it?

---

Honest answer. I don't know but I damn sure don't act like you and act like I know everything. I damn sure don't deny it's real and rant and rave that it's fake from the mountain tops. I know that my aunt along with 3 others that died from it, had all the symptoms of this, as you call it, "fake" virus. Again, I don't claim to know everything like you do. I don't ignore facts and stick to my crazy opinions like you do. I do know you are about the most insensitive, opinionated, and wrong person I've ever done across.

---

acslater1344 said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

GuerrillaPack said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

You're insensitive every single time you come on here ranting and raving about the "fake" virus. Just an FYI, and not that you give a damn, my aunt was perfectly healthy before this outside of being over 60 and having minimal blood pressure issues and she got it. She actually got a "fake" virus. Insensitive is what you are and what you've always been.

---

Honest question for you or anyone....how does this test to see if someone "has covid-19" work? And how reliable truly is it?

---

Honest answer. I don't know but I damn sure don't act like you and act like I know everything. I damn sure don't deny it's real and rant and rave that it's fake from the mountain tops. I know that my aunt along with 3 others that died from it, had all the symptoms of this, as you call it, "fake" virus. Again, I don't claim to know everything like you do. I don't ignore facts and stick to my crazy opinions like you do. I do know you are about the most insensitive, opinionated, and wrong person I've ever done across.

---

It's not worth it, brother. GP is the crazy uncle of these boards. No reason to entertain his nonsense.

---

TheStorm said:

---

Daviewolf83 said:

---

Wayland said:

---

This was the first time I had really looked through the Cambridge stuff. The secondary rubella infection IgG is fascinating. Again, not that I put a lot of stock in stuff of the internet these days. But it is cool to think about in theory if any of this proves true.

---

I got the MMR vaccine in 1971 (the year is was developed).

---

LOL. You got shot by that damn gun then, didn't you? The school system actually administered ours... and at that time it was mandatory.

---

Wayland said:

---

Link to above:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2015897

---

GuerrillaPack said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

Well, I've got a interesting story to tell. My family had a gathering for a birthday a couple weeks ago. 3 days later, my aunt had a head cold, got tested and was positive for Covid19. They were all together for hours at the gathering, ages 15-82. All got tested Friday and got their results today. Noone tested positive from the people that were at the party thankfully. My aunt is doing fine now but maybe it's not as contagious as previously thought. Every body there over the age of 35 had pre-existing conditions but thankfully, none contracted the virus.

---

Glad to hear that your aunt is doing well and glad to hear that no one else turned positive. Please keep us posted on her recovery.

---

Will do. It's crazy how much you think about when people you care about are waiting for results for something like this. I know GP will say it's fake but it sure gets real when it hits that Clair to home. Have lost 3 people I've known for years to this but family is a different ballgame.

---

To be clear, I'm not denying that people are dying. And I'm certainly not trying to be insensitive to anyone who has died.

What I'm saying is that I dispute the cause of many of these deaths that are being classifed as "from covid-19". I think many of these people who are dying (again, mostly elderly and those with pre-existing health problems) are actually dying as the result of pneumonia, heart disease, the flu and other other "traditional" illnesses or health problems. But then they are doing a "test" for "covid-19" and if they say that the person "had covid-19" recently, then they classify the death as "caused" by Covid-19. But that's not necessarily the case. They may have had a cold/flu virus recently, but that is not necessarily what caused their death.

And again, the "test" they are using to see if someone has covid-19 is extremely suspect, and unreliable....as I understand. Can anyone tell me how this test supposedly works?

By the way, I've heard that the number of deaths classified from heart attack, pneumonia and the flu have conveniently gone way down over the last few months. How could that be? Because deaths from those things are (incorrectly) being classified as "caused by covid-19".

---

packgrad said:

---

Maybe the media is finally starting to listen to Wayland and Davie. Dozens of outlets are suing the governor and NCDHHS to make records public. It also appears they cherry pick who gets to ask questions at each conference.

---