Page 35 of 38

Re: Coronavirus

Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2020 9:29 am
by FuB
To be honest, i really couldn't put it past the cunt to invent this as some sort of bizarre electioneering tactic... you know... man of the people and suffering with them sort of thing.

Re: Coronavirus

Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2020 1:32 pm
by Sid
Fingers crossed he doesn't make it, for the good of us all and the planet tbf

Re: Coronavirus

Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2020 1:40 pm
by FuB
Sid wrote:
3 months ago
Fingers crossed he doesn't make it, for the good of us all and the planet tbf
i think i stop short of wishing illness and death on people but it's definitely testing my morals and resolve in this instance

Re: Coronavirus

Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2020 1:44 pm
by Sid
FuB wrote:
3 months ago
Sid wrote:
3 months ago
Fingers crossed he doesn't make it, for the good of us all and the planet tbf
i think i stop short of wishing illness and death on people but it's definitely testing my morals and resolve in this instance
I'm not getting my hopes up tbh cos like you said I wouldn't be surprised if this was invented in order to garner sympathy and duck out of media appearances in the election campaign. That way he won't have to face questions about his awful record and the quater of a million coronavirus deaths.

Re: Coronavirus

Posted: Sat Oct 03, 2020 11:11 am
by Sid
Trump hospitalised and having trouble breathing

Re: Coronavirus

Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2020 7:13 am
by swampash
FuB wrote:
3 months ago
To be honest, i really couldn't put it past the cunt to invent this as some sort of bizarre electioneering tactic... you know... man of the people and suffering with them sort of thing.
It is looking more and more like you were right.

Re: Coronavirus

Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2020 3:40 pm
by FuB
swampash wrote:
3 months ago
FuB wrote:
3 months ago
To be honest, i really couldn't put it past the cunt to invent this as some sort of bizarre electioneering tactic... you know... man of the people and suffering with them sort of thing.
It is looking more and more like you were right.
To be honest, it's probably true they all picked up the virus (now blaming the son it seems) but that does change the fact the timeline of test and his public appearances seem a bit cocked up and I was right he'd use it for electioneering.

Re: Coronavirus

Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2020 8:34 am
by Sid
Ending Covid-19 via herd immunity is ‘a dangerous fallacy’

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... us-fallacy

The concept of ending the Covid pandemic through herd immunity is “a dangerous fallacy unsupported by scientific evidence”, say 80 researchers in a warning letter published by a leading medical journal.

For anyone still believing the right wing shite about herd immunity

Re: Coronavirus

Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2020 8:31 am
by Sid
So another national lockdown, starting next week

Once again it's after the horse has bolted and tens of thousands are gonna die

Meanwhile the economic impact is gonna be comparable to deindustrialisation now the safety nets have been taken away, mass unemployment, destitution, trauma

It's an example of how to fuck up a pandemic

Re: Coronavirus

Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2020 6:50 pm
by FuB
Sid wrote:
1 month ago
FuB wrote:
1 month ago
The danger is if mutations of the virus change the parts of the genome that PCR is looking for. Then you get positive people testing negative.
Can you explain this? I don't think I quite understand
PCR is a way of amplifying a specific region of DNA or RNA in a sample. The more specific tests for coronavirus use this method to detect positive samples.

I'm not 100% sure but i think the current PCR tests are looking for RNA strands that code for the spike protein of coronavirus and it's this part of the virus that's seeing mutations. It could eventually get to the point where a PCR test for the original strains won't detect newer strains because the part of the genome it's amplifying doesn't look the same anymore (and therefore it won't get "amplified").

The other tests for coronavirus are immunological tests which are looking for antibodies. I suppose these could also be rendered ineffective by enough mutations of the virus since the more specific parts of our own immune system would be looking for specific physical aspects of the virus. If those change enough, our secondary immune responses wouldn't recognise a sufficiently different virus. The immune system is pretty complex and the way it works isn't just to have things that look for jigsaw perfect fits. There's a less specific primary response which is more hammer to crack a nut - and probably what's been saving most people who get no symptoms or mild symptoms.

I'm not really particularly well qualified or knowledgeable enough to explain PCR or immunology-based ELISA tests so it might be worth you looking elsewhere for better answers.