Jump to content

Claude_Verret

Members
  • Content Count

    6,543
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

188 Excellent

About Claude_Verret

  • Rank
    First Liner

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,709 profile views
  1. This post indicates that you still don't understand what I'm saying. I retired from posting and talking to people about this stuff about a month into the pandemic. It became exhausting. Time to go back. Before I go back ill second Neos recommendation to check out The Great Influenza. Another good read would be Carl Sagan's the Demon Haunted World. Carry on fellow Sabre Spacers.
  2. How is anything in that article inconsistent with anything that I've posted?
  3. Not if you're an epidemiologist or public health official who wants the clearest picture and understanding of how the virus is evolving so as to implement the best methods to combat it going forward. And nobody? I think we've had a few posters who cleary didn't and possibly still don't understand the arguments im making.
  4. Anyone who denies the benefits of social distancing, mask wearing, hand washing etc. is ignoring the established science. At the same time, anyone who pins an increase of positive cases SOLELY on not adhering to the guidelines is ignoring the scientific method and they are wrong. Im not sure how I can make my position on this any clearer. The above two concepts are not mutually exclusive.
  5. Yes, and why I put the appropriate grain of salt caveat at the end of my post.
  6. Attacks? The pattern I called out in your debating style is a tactic you've employed here for quite some time whether you're doing it consciously or not. I guess we are talking past each other since your questions indicate not having a grasp on how scientific studies and progress actually works. I posted something yesterday in response to liger that attempted to explain my thoughts on that.
  7. You're right. Now we're into social media to to get our 'reliable' information. Its even worse.
  8. I think I've made a sincere attempt to clarify my positions. I'm certainly open to clarify them further if asked direct questions on what I've actually posted.
  9. I'll do what you do best time and time again and simply ignore the content of the post I'm responding to and ask a ridiculous question instead. Does giving a patient motrin and subsequently watching their fever subside tell you anything about the cause of the fever?
  10. The S protein, or spike protein, is how the virus attaches and infects cells. The human cell membrane surface protein that it attaches to is the ACE2 (angiotension something) receptor. This group showed that the D614G (D=aspartic acid, 614=the amino acid number, or residue, in the S protein and G=glycine) showed greater infectivity. So the mutation that causes a change in the S protein at residue 614 from aspartic acid to glycine shows a higher ability to infect cells than the aspartic acid or D614 form of the virus in these experiments.
  11. Kind of. There is certainly data out there in controlled lab environments that show that masks work to control the spread of virus. Im more saying that even knowing about this data, if you observe a rise in cases around the same time you see people not following recommended guidelines and you immediately pin that rise on the ignoring of guidelines, then that's unscientific reasoning and it ignores many of the other variables that could be contributing, like the study that I linked to above. Im not going to even pretend to be an epidemiologist, so I don't know how or if they even can tease out something like mask use and its impact from the data being gathered. The bottom line is that we can use the public health measures as best we can to get a handle on this thing, but the virus itself has a say in all of this as well.
  12. Throw this into the pot as a potential cause for the rise in cases. As I said before changes on the micro level, in this case a single amino acid mutation in the spike protein domain involved in ACE2 receptor binding, can have effects as well. Appropriate grain of salt as this is a single study in a lab and has to be taken in context of all the other studies in this sub field being published. In summary, we show that an S protein mutation that results in more transmissible SARS-CoV-2 also limits shedding of the S1 domain and increases S-protein incorporation into the virion. Further studies will be necessary to determine the impact of this change on the nature and severity of COVID-19. https://www.scripps.edu/news-and-events/press-room/2020/20200611-choe-farzan-sars-cov-2-spike-protein.html
  13. Right. So youre validating your sources how exactly? Im sure its by going to the peer reviewed literature and assessing the study design, methodology, results and conclusions. As usual, you're clueless.
  14. And how often do you read anything from pubmed beyond the abstract? And Google is always all too willing to take you wherever your search string tells it to. You want data telling you that people not wearing masks is akin to murder? Google will take you there. Want data that says you should flush your masks down the toilet? Google will take you there too.
  15. Ok. Google is certainly the way most folks are tracking this pandemic I'll continue using pubmed.
×
×
  • Create New...