Quote:

---

New research from Karolinska Institutet and Karolinska University Hospital shows that many people with mild or asymptomatic COVID-19 demonstrate so-called T-cell-mediated immunity to the new coronavirus, even if they have not tested positively for antibodies. According to the researchers, this means that public immunity is probably higher than antibody tests suggest. The article will soon be freely available on the bioRxiv server and has been submitted for publication in a scientific journal.

---

Quote:

---

The T-cell response was consistent with measurements taken after vaccination with approved vaccines for other viruses. Patients with severe COVID-19 often developed a strong T-cell response and an antibody response; in those with milder symptoms it was not always possible to detect an antibody response, but despite this many still showed a marked T-cell response.

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Everpack said:

---

No one has bothered to answer the question of how long we wear masks? What is our finish line?

---

I bothered to, you just didn't like the answer.

The answer is, until there's a vaccine or until there's a clinically significant downturn in cases in the US.

I'll leave it up to epidemiologists to develop some consensus around what's clinically significant. My guess is, it's to a level that syncs up with our ability at that time to test, contact-trace, and isolate to keep driving the numbers down.

That needs to be scientific consensus though, not as determined by partisan politics.

---

Not directed at you but I keep seeing people over and over say we must see a down turn in cases. The numbers that are being put out daily are terribly inaccurate to begin with. Hell, we may actually be having a downtick in cases but the numbers they show are so off and so out of date and out of line, that they can't be trusted at all.

---

Civilized said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Everpack said:

---

No one has bothered to answer the question of how long we wear masks? What is our finish line?

---

I bothered to, you just didn't like the answer.

The answer is, until there's a vaccine or until there's a clinically significant downturn in cases in the US.

I'll leave it up to epidemiologists to develop some consensus around what's clinically significant. My guess is, it's to a level that syncs up with our ability at that time to test, contact-trace, and isolate to keep driving the numbers down.

That needs to be scientific consensus though, not as determined by partisan politics.

---

Not directed at you but I keep seeing people over and over say we must see a down turn in cases. The numbers that are being put out daily are terribly inaccurate to begin with. Hell, we may actually be having a downtick in cases but the numbers they show are so off and so out of date and out of line, that they can't be trusted at all.

---

I agree with you that I distrust the numbers somewhat.

Trends are still observable though. Our confirmed case trend line isn't just a little different from Europe and Southeast Asia; it's opposite ends of the spectrum.

If I'm on the panel of doctors, the metrics I'm using to determine what constitutes 'clinically significant' would account for the nebulous nature of reporting. You couldn't focus on something like "14 straight days of declining confirmed cases1!!!" because day-to-day reporting is too scattershot.

You could look at 7-day or 14-day trendlines, or month-over-month assessments, or similar. Confirmed cases aren't the end-all, be-all either; % positives and #hospitalizations and deaths also need to be accounted for.

---

Civilized said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Everpack said:

---

No one has bothered to answer the question of how long we wear masks? What is our finish line?

---

I bothered to, you just didn't like the answer.

The answer is, until there's a vaccine or until there's a clinically significant downturn in cases in the US.

I'll leave it up to epidemiologists to develop some consensus around what's clinically significant. My guess is, it's to a level that syncs up with our ability at that time to test, contact-trace, and isolate to keep driving the numbers down.

That needs to be scientific consensus though, not as determined by partisan politics.

---

Not directed at you but I keep seeing people over and over say we must see a down turn in cases. The numbers that are being put out daily are terribly inaccurate to begin with. Hell, we may actually be having a downtick in cases but the numbers they show are so off and so out of date and out of line, that they can't be trusted at all.

---

I agree with you that I distrust the numbers somewhat.

Trends are still observable though. Our confirmed case trend line isn't just a little different from Europe and Southeast Asia; it's opposite ends of the spectrum.

If I'm on the panel of doctors, the metrics I'm using to determine what constitutes 'clinically significant' would account for the nebulous nature of reporting. You couldn't focus on something like "14 straight days of declining confirmed cases1!!!" because day-to-day reporting is too scattershot.

You could look at 7-day or 14-day trendlines, or month-over-month assessments, or similar. Confirmed cases aren't the end-all, be-all either; % positives and #hospitalizations and deaths also need to be accounted for.

---

Daviewolf83 said:

---

Wayland said:

---

ncsualum05 said:

---

Wayland said:

---

Hard to figure out the data when it is so laggy sometimes. Got to love that 5 week old positive COVID testing coming back now. It sure does add a lot of value!!

---

LOL. So they are adding cases to the number when the patient themselves might have already recovered.

---

Not to be morbid. Just making sense of data now that I look at it. There is a distinct chance that those cases from like 5 weeks ago could be late death adds. There were some late May one-off deaths added recently, maybe that is adding in the positive case and death at the same time? Just trying to think through it because otherwise you would be absolutely right in it being a post-recovery case addition.

---

I would not be surprised if those case adds from weeks ago end up returning to yesterday's numbers in tomorrow's update. As a chart this every day, I see these weird one-off upticks one day and the next day, the numbers move back to the previous day's numbers. For the life of me, I can not figure out why they even bother to look so far back if they are only adjusting by one case.

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Everpack said:

---

No one has bothered to answer the question of how long we wear masks? What is our finish line?

---

I bothered to, you just didn't like the answer.

The answer is, until there's a vaccine or until there's a clinically significant downturn in cases in the US.

I'll leave it up to epidemiologists to develop some consensus around what's clinically significant. My guess is, it's to a level that syncs up with our ability at that time to test, contact-trace, and isolate to keep driving the numbers down.

That needs to be scientific consensus though, not as determined by partisan politics.

---

Not directed at you but I keep seeing people over and over say we must see a down turn in cases. The numbers that are being put out daily are terribly inaccurate to begin with. Hell, we may actually be having a downtick in cases but the numbers they show are so off and so out of date and out of line, that they can't be trusted at all.

---

Packchem91 said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Everpack said:

---

No one has bothered to answer the question of how long we wear masks? What is our finish line?

---

I bothered to, you just didn't like the answer.

The answer is, until there's a vaccine or until there's a clinically significant downturn in cases in the US.

I'll leave it up to epidemiologists to develop some consensus around what's clinically significant. My guess is, it's to a level that syncs up with our ability at that time to test, contact-trace, and isolate to keep driving the numbers down.

That needs to be scientific consensus though, not as determined by partisan politics.

---

Not directed at you but I keep seeing people over and over say we must see a down turn in cases. The numbers that are being put out daily are terribly inaccurate to begin with. Hell, we may actually be having a downtick in cases but the numbers they show are so off and so out of date and out of line, that they can't be trusted at all.

---

How do we compare to Hong Kong? Or Tokyo, or any of those crowded Asian cities where people are accustomed to wearing masks?
I get we shouldn't have to get to their incredibly low #s....but maybe we can aspire to get to #s like Europe is seeing? Crazy -- Europe is restricting the US from travelling there now. That should be discouraging and tell you "they did this better than we did"

---

metcalfmafia said:

---

IDK why "sjukdomsfall per dag" cracked me up so much.

Swedish is an interesting language.

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Everpack said:

---

No one has bothered to answer the question of how long we wear masks? What is our finish line?

---

I bothered to, you just didn't like the answer.

The answer is, until there's a vaccine or until there's a clinically significant downturn in cases in the US.

I'll leave it up to epidemiologists to develop some consensus around what's clinically significant. My guess is, it's to a level that syncs up with our ability at that time to test, contact-trace, and isolate to keep driving the numbers down.

That needs to be scientific consensus though, not as determined by partisan politics.

---

Not directed at you but I keep seeing people over and over say we must see a down turn in cases. The numbers that are being put out daily are terribly inaccurate to begin with. Hell, we may actually be having a downtick in cases but the numbers they show are so off and so out of date and out of line, that they can't be trusted at all.

---

How do we compare to Hong Kong? Or Tokyo, or any of those crowded Asian cities where people are accustomed to wearing masks?
I get we shouldn't have to get to their incredibly low #s....but maybe we can aspire to get to #s like Europe is seeing? Crazy -- Europe is restricting the US from travelling there now. That should be discouraging and tell you "they did this better than we did"

---

Doesn't tell me anything. The numbers are all subjective based on a lot of factors. Testing numbers, reported cases, actual cases, actual deaths, actual recoveries. Sadly, I don't trust a single number coming from any country. Wear the damn mask man. Ain't nobody telling you not to. Compare the US to anyone you want to. If you want to take the numbers you see at face value, go for it.

---

Packchem91 said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Everpack said:

---

No one has bothered to answer the question of how long we wear masks? What is our finish line?

---

I bothered to, you just didn't like the answer.

The answer is, until there's a vaccine or until there's a clinically significant downturn in cases in the US.

I'll leave it up to epidemiologists to develop some consensus around what's clinically significant. My guess is, it's to a level that syncs up with our ability at that time to test, contact-trace, and isolate to keep driving the numbers down.

That needs to be scientific consensus though, not as determined by partisan politics.

---

Not directed at you but I keep seeing people over and over say we must see a down turn in cases. The numbers that are being put out daily are terribly inaccurate to begin with. Hell, we may actually be having a downtick in cases but the numbers they show are so off and so out of date and out of line, that they can't be trusted at all.

---

How do we compare to Hong Kong? Or Tokyo, or any of those crowded Asian cities where people are accustomed to wearing masks?
I get we shouldn't have to get to their incredibly low #s....but maybe we can aspire to get to #s like Europe is seeing? Crazy -- Europe is restricting the US from travelling there now. That should be discouraging and tell you "they did this better than we did"

---

Doesn't tell me anything. The numbers are all subjective based on a lot of factors. Testing numbers, reported cases, actual cases, actual deaths, actual recoveries. Sadly, I don't trust a single number coming from any country. Wear the damn mask man. Ain't nobody telling you not to. Compare the US to anyone you want to. If you want to take the numbers you see at face value, go for it.

---

I'll grant you that our #s are cooked -- and that should make us all angry. But there is an order of magnitude difference between what is reported here versus what is reported in most Europe / Asian countries -- that isn't caused by handfuls of weeks old cases being dumped in at the last minute.

I truly believe, for whatever reasons, many Americans take this thing too lightly. We know the President does.
And that leads to many of his followers doing the same. And that....will keep us in jail.

To turn your words...if you want to assume the #s are bogus, and you're fine to go to the mall, bars, etc w/o mask -- go for it. (I may give you a skunk eye if you get close to me though)

---

wilmwolf80 said:

---

I think it's fairly pointless to compare numbers in this country versus other countries, and I've said so since the beginning, accuracy of the numbers aside. We are unique. You have places that are heavily affected and others that aren't. There are many factors - population density, public transport use, international travel, ethic makeup, socio economic factors, all that contribute. Comparing the US to Europe as a whole may be more accurate, but still flawed.

As for masks, the one thing I'm certain of is that getting preachy with those that don't want to or can't wear one damn sure isn't going to change their mind. And like I've said before, if most people are wearing a mask, the few that don't probably really don't matter. The point of wearing a mask according to the experts isn't to protect yourself from getting it, it's to cut down on the odds, not eliminate entirely, you spreading it if you have it. The best way to not get the virus remains to not get close enough for someone to give it to you. Even the governor's order doesn't say you have to wear one all the time, it says that masks should be worn when distancing isn't possible. I wear mine in the store as a courtesy to others, and so I don't get doxxed on social media by some loon. I don't wear it outside because I'm not in close proximity to anyone, and the science says that it is highly unlikely to get it outside. I'm not going to continue to wear a mask indefinitely, especially not waiting for a vaccine or cure (and it doesn't have anything to do with my political beliefs or who I voted for president), but will continue to do so if required to do the things I want to do.

---

wilmwolf80 said:

---

I think it's fairly pointless to compare numbers in this country versus other countries, and I've said so since the beginning, accuracy of the numbers aside. We are unique. You have places that are heavily affected and others that aren't. There are many factors - population density, public transport use, international travel, ethic makeup, socio economic factors, all that contribute. Comparing the US to Europe as a whole may be more accurate, but still flawed.

As for masks, the one thing I'm certain of is that getting preachy with those that don't want to or can't wear one damn sure isn't going to change their mind. And like I've said before, if most people are wearing a mask, the few that don't probably really don't matter. The point of wearing a mask according to the experts isn't to protect yourself from getting it, it's to cut down on the odds, not eliminate entirely, you spreading it if you have it. The best way to not get the virus remains to not get close enough for someone to give it to you. Even the governor's order doesn't say you have to wear one all the time, it says that masks should be worn when distancing isn't possible. I wear mine in the store as a courtesy to others, and so I don't get doxxed on social media by some loon. I don't wear it outside because I'm not in close proximity to anyone, and the science says that it is highly unlikely to get it outside. I'm not going to continue to wear a mask indefinitely, especially not waiting for a vaccine or cure (and it doesn't have anything to do with my political beliefs or who I voted for president), but will continue to do so if required to do the things I want to do.

---

wilmwolf80 said:

---

I think it's fairly pointless to compare numbers in this country versus other countries, and I've said so since the beginning, accuracy of the numbers aside. We are unique. You have places that are heavily affected and others that aren't. There are many factors - population density, public transport use, international travel, ethic makeup, socio economic factors, all that contribute. Comparing the US to Europe as a whole may be more accurate, but still flawed.

As for masks, the one thing I'm certain of is that getting preachy with those that don't want to or can't wear one damn sure isn't going to change their mind. And like I've said before, if most people are wearing a mask, the few that don't probably really don't matter. The point of wearing a mask according to the experts isn't to protect yourself from getting it, it's to cut down on the odds, not eliminate entirely, you spreading it if you have it. The best way to not get the virus remains to not get close enough for someone to give it to you. Even the governor's order doesn't say you have to wear one all the time, it says that masks should be worn when distancing isn't possible. I wear mine in the store as a courtesy to others, and so I don't get doxxed on social media by some loon. I don't wear it outside because I'm not in close proximity to anyone, and the science says that it is highly unlikely to get it outside. I'm not going to continue to wear a mask indefinitely, especially not waiting for a vaccine or cure (and it doesn't have anything to do with my political beliefs or who I voted for president), but will continue to do so if required to do the things I want to do.

---

wilmwolf80 said:

---

I think it's fairly pointless to compare numbers in this country versus other countries, and I've said so since the beginning, accuracy of the numbers aside. We are unique. You have places that are heavily affected and others that aren't. There are many factors - population density, public transport use, international travel, ethic makeup, socio economic factors, all that contribute. Comparing the US to Europe as a whole may be more accurate, but still flawed.

As for masks, the one thing I'm certain of is that getting preachy with those that don't want to or can't wear one damn sure isn't going to change their mind. And like I've said before, if most people are wearing a mask, the few that don't probably really don't matter. The point of wearing a mask according to the experts isn't to protect yourself from getting it, it's to cut down on the odds, not eliminate entirely, you spreading it if you have it. The best way to not get the virus remains to not get close enough for someone to give it to you. Even the governor's order doesn't say you have to wear one all the time, it says that masks should be worn when distancing isn't possible. I wear mine in the store as a courtesy to others, and so I don't get doxxed on social media by some loon. I don't wear it outside because I'm not in close proximity to anyone, and the science says that it is highly unlikely to get it outside. I'm not going to continue to wear a mask indefinitely, especially not waiting for a vaccine or cure (and it doesn't have anything to do with my political beliefs or who I voted for president), but will continue to do so if required to do the things I want to do.

---

Daviewolf83 said:

---

Some interesting data out of Charlotte regarding hospitalizations in Atrium's hospitals.

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Daviewolf83 said:

---

Some interesting data out of Charlotte regarding hospitalizations in Atrium's hospitals.

---

First question - how does that compare to normal - that sounds like a very high utilization rate even if you took out the 29 covid patients (would still be >60%).

Second question...assume #1 is that it is high --- what is the other major factor driving that. Is it a rush to have other critical surgeries done now before covid may take over? Or just "full moon syndrome" or something otherwise normal fluctuation.

---

Daviewolf83 said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Davie....we can all sit here and try to justify that "its not our fault", but looking at those numbers, clearly something is significantly different -- even if that huge spike from mid-June on wasn't in the graph. And not in a good way.

Wonder what a person who has no vested interest would look at say are the 3 top things done differently between EU and US?

---

I think part of the issue is the major countries in the EU (Italy, Spain, France) were very hard hit and had infection levels similar to NY, NJ, Mass. Those states look a lot like the EU now. The southern states seeing the spikes now were did not have the same level of general infection in the population and it was more of a slow burn. These states never really "peaked", like NY, NJ, Mass, etc. The same is true for the major EU countries and the UK. They saw very big peaks in cases, much greater than the southern states.As such, a larger percentage were infected early in these hard hit states and countries, so they are not seeing a spike now.

I have also seen theories suggesting the hot weather in the south and southern California (where the cases are spiking) is driving people inside and inside is the worst place to be when you have a virus in the population. This is one of the primary drivers of flu cases in the late Fall and Winter. People go inside and they infect other people. I think there may be something to this theory, but it will require more study.

It is clear that cases declined "after" the states started reopening and many states had been opened for weeks and saw no spike. This definitely points to other factors being at play, in addition to reopening. It was expected cases would increase after reopening, so no one should be surprised by more cases. What is surprising, is the big spike in the last week.

I know it is not popular, but I also believe the protests in the past two weeks could be driving additional cases. If you look at the data and plot the reopening points and the points where the protests started, you can see a fairly obvious relationship. Of course, you have to look at the underlying data and not just look at lines on a chart, but the lines on the charts do call for further investigation.

Last, I will remind everyone that wearing a mask is only part of the solution. Dr. Birx was very clear a few months ago when she said you need to wear a mask AND you must social distance at the same time. I am afraid people think they are safe wearing a mask and do not need to social distance. People have to do both to effectively reduce transmission.

---

Daviewolf83 said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Davie....we can all sit here and try to justify that "its not our fault", but looking at those numbers, clearly something is significantly different -- even if that huge spike from mid-June on wasn't in the graph. And not in a good way.

Wonder what a person who has no vested interest would look at say are the 3 top things done differently between EU and US?

---

I think part of the issue is the major countries in the EU (Italy, Spain, France) were very hard hit and had infection levels similar to NY, NJ, Mass. Those states look a lot like the EU now. The southern states seeing the spikes now were did not have the same level of general infection in the population and it was more of a slow burn. These states never really "peaked", like NY, NJ, Mass, etc. The same is true for the major EU countries and the UK. They saw very big peaks in cases, much greater than the southern states.As such, a larger percentage were infected early in these hard hit states and countries, so they are not seeing a spike now.

I have also seen theories suggesting the hot weather in the south and southern California (where the cases are spiking) is driving people inside and inside is the worst place to be when you have a virus in the population. This is one of the primary drivers of flu cases in the late Fall and Winter. People go inside and they infect other people. I think there may be something to this theory, but it will require more study.

It is clear that cases declined "after" the states started reopening and many states had been opened for weeks and saw no spike. This definitely points to other factors being at play, in addition to reopening. It was expected cases would increase after reopening, so no one should be surprised by more cases. What is surprising, is the big spike in the last week.

I know it is not popular, but I also believe the protests in the past two weeks could be driving additional cases. If you look at the data and plot the reopening points and the points where the protests started, you can see a fairly obvious relationship. Of course, you have to look at the underlying data and not just look at lines on a chart, but the lines on the charts do call for further investigation.

Last, I will remind everyone that wearing a mask is only part of the solution. Dr. Birx was very clear a few months ago when she said you need to wear a mask AND you must social distance at the same time. I am afraid people think they are safe wearing a mask and do not need to social distance. People have to do both to effectively reduce transmission.

---