Corona Virus Updates

a reply to: FamCore

How could a vaccine cure scar tissue? Scarring implies permanent.

a reply to: Agit8dChop

Congratulations! You are now a more careful and proficient bioinformatician than the authors of this paper.

I'm now a better bioinformatician than a group of experts with degrees and years of experience?

Sounds highly unlikely, set of my bs meter.

I'm certainly not an expert no matter what someone says but here's a few things that come to mind off the top of my head.

Yes each sequence seems to have multiple other hits, but why compare it to fruit flies and amoeba? They compared it to other virus which makes sense because it's a virus.

They tested matches for all 4 sequences at once, not individually. So this bit might match this and other bit match that, but what matches all 4 together?

Anyway, I don't know but my intuition says obfuscation.

a reply to: EndtheMadnessNow

So he never got desperately ill though? I know pneumonia sounds serious, but they said his symptoms never progressed to a level of emergency. It simply sounds like they were constantly monitoring by taking x-rays to keep an eye on him.

That squares with what they discovered in the little boy who was asymptomatic. He never showed any symptoms, but his lungs did show signs of pneumonia. So it seems you can have chest congestion consistent with pneumonia and not feel terribly ill or even ill at all, and all the while be contagious.

can anyone help me understand what this resource is illustrating? You can adjust the "tree options" settings ("rectangular", "unrooted", "radial, "clock"). It looks like it may be illustrating genetic sequencing of those affected, or geographic regions affected?

nextstrain.org...

I'm just trying to see how this resource may be helpful in analyzing what we've observed in the past week with the progression

a reply to: EndtheMadnessNow

I have mixed feelings about that one, started like bronchitis then moved on to viral pneumonia pretty quick. It looks like no underlying conditions, young and healthy and his body was able to fight off the infection.

Happy it did not cause major complications, really hoping I don’t get another bronchitis type lung infection that can cause pneumonia this year. I don’t want another 2-3 weeks of coughing.

Primary symptom was the persistent cough, this thing is a spreader and it can go right around a mask.

Is there a published paper with more data on him yet?

a reply to: Audiokat

Technically if you took 75k from the Lancet article and the same formula, then applied to other cities with a base assumption you could sum total to 500k.

As an IT Monkey it makes sense to me on a basic level.

I ain’t a scientist though.

a reply to: FamCore

It's showing how the various viral samples relate to one another genetically. It's a family tree of sorts.

a reply to: primalfractal

That line was a throw away joke at the end of the article..

the gist of the response says

if i take 4 characters in a string and search that short string in the pool of virus genomes that we have.. then id get nearly 8000 matches

because 1 of those results is HIV, does not mean this virus gives out HIV.

... it seems others are voicing similar views as well so... i think this is more believable.

Honestly, it sounds like the guy in Washington had walking pneumonia out of his case.

So are we looking at something that causes viral pneumonia and that's how it spreads, but that pneumonia can range from ARDS level nastiness to mild walking pneumonia which means you walk around giving it to everyone around you?

originally posted by: SpartanStoic
a reply to: FamCore

How could a vaccine cure scar tissue? Scarring implies permanent.

That's like trying to tell someone JFK wasn't hit by a lone gunman. The typical citizen typically doesn't put 2 and 2 together like we do (in my experience anyway).. or they just prefer not to think about such dark things like the State messing with the lives of the masses and trying to play God

originally posted by: Trillium
Very interesting turn of even
The top White House official responsible for leading the U.S. response in the event of a deadly pandemic has left the administration, and the global health security team that he oversaw has been disbanded under a reorganization by national security adviser John Bolton.

www.independent.co.uk...

i know you don't bother to read and instead just post random bits of data that were already posted, but news from may 2018? really?

I think that captures the essence of it for the most part

a reply to: EndtheMadnessNow

I just thought of something else interesting:

This coronavirus apparently hits the ACE receptors on respiratory cells and uses those receptors to infect cells, and the primary / most common symptom of this coronavirus is a cough.

Some people take ACE-inhibitor drugs for high blood pressure, and the primary side effect causing the discontinuation of these drugs when a particular patient cannot tolerate the drug is also cough. Connecting the dots?

Then further, if a patient is on an ACE-inhibitor drug, has that ever been shown to affect the number of ACE receptors on their cells, and affect their vulnerability to infection / symptoms? I am thinking more receptors = more vulnerable to this coronavirus. Would a patient already taking an ACE inhibitor drug have a different chance of being infected? Are these people more vulnerable (maybe because they have more receptors to try to compensate for the drug inhibiting them?) ?

So....... with the incubation period at a potential 14 days ( 4+? - HIV-1 receptors designed to do so as to allow virus to hide) backtracking prior to arrest of eight doctors mid December reporting unsubscribed pneumonia cases charged with rumor mongering then one could surmise actual lab accident or purposeful release at Wuhan was very late November or very early December.

This timing is important as to number of cases and exposures in given time frame and where we might actually be at with case numbers.

a reply to: jedi_hamster

i know you don't bother to read and instead just post random bits of data that was already posted, but news from may 2018? really?

Christ I had a good chuckle at this one..

a reply to: SpartanStoic

Granted. And whilst I'm certainly not convinced the figures coming out of China are indeed correct, when someone throws such numbers as that out whilst claiming reliable sources but then fails at the first hurdle to provide evidence, I for one consider it total nonsense.

a reply to: ketsuko

so the sequencing shows that this virus is mutating? Or is it like other living things where each individual has different DNA sequence? I'm not great at technical analysis when it comes to science like this

a reply to: FamCore

The longer version explains that it is mutating, but at this point in time, those mutations mean very little. Mostly, they're just a means of showing how all the strains fit together and where approximately they branched off. It even says, you can expect to see a "significant" mutation about every 3 weeks. It also explains that you can see commonalities that will group strains into "families", etc.

But it also says none of it will necessarily mean any of the virus strains will act significantly different from each other in reality.

a reply to: Phoenix

The genome tree they've constructed of the viral strains track back at least that far. They surmise the first cases had to be late November/Early December if not a bit earlier. So the hard evidence from genetic testing of the strains fits that theory.

a reply to: Fowlerstoad

The virus targets ACE2 which do increase in number in patients with underlying chronic conditions. If they’re on an ACE inhibitor they are either hypertensive with high blood pressure, could be taking it with a diuretic for multiple issues with the cardiovascular system or heart. That would increase the number of ACE2 receptors for the virus to bind to, at least that is a theory in some of the articles I have seen. They also compete with one another so if you block ACE, ACE2 can function more freely. Increased availability of some chemicals have increased receptor number, I’m not sure with these ones though.



I saw information that the binding site could serve as a target for a monoclonal antibody treatment, other than that I’m not even sure what the side effects of that could be.