Any climbers who have already recovered from COVID?

...and here we are near the end of page 6 and there were 2 responses from people who actually were tested and found positive, and 3 "sounds likes" (JA,pg2, MaxR pg 3, & Elliott pg 3)

ps - Joe, I see you're from/in Germany.  "Kudos" for having a Prime Minister who has a science background, along with the lowest death rate of the major countries.  

Robert Hall wrote: ...and here we are near the end of page 6 and there were 2 responses from people who actually were tested and found positive, and 3 "sounds likes" (JA,pg2, MaxR pg 3, & Elliott pg 3)

ps - Joe, I see you're from/in Germany.  "Kudos" for having a Prime Minister who has a science background, along with the lowest death rate of the major countries.  

Grew up in NH and moved here a few years ago. It is kind of nice to have Angie around. She actually visited our lab (federal institute, so she is the boss) a few times as our BSL4 went hot. Very smart (and nice) woman. She had great questions about the lab.

What about covid toes???

Franck Vee wrote:

I think is isn't right.

I mean no offense when I say that you think that and Joshua McDaniel agrees with you because both of you clearly fail to understand the mentality of investors and the business world in general. No sane investor (unless they did not invest with their own interests in mind, and who does that?) would be the one who invests in a bunch of clinical research which demonstrates the medical effectiveness of CBD, or any other easily plant derived compound, just so a bunch of people who did not invest any money in the research can come in and price the original investor out of the market due to being able to make the exact same product without the financial overhead of funding the initial research which makes the whole thing possible.  Even if the original investor is not priced out, the insult of having to make a fraction of the profit of other market players is enough to make it an unappealing investment.

You are likely more familiar with the short-hand notation: there is little to no effective way to monetize things like CBD or essential oils for medical purposes. 

It has little to do with effectiveness, and nothing at all to do with competition against DIYers. Its all about the $$.

I had H1N1 in early Feb. Symptoms were identical to COVID. But I was tested and was positive for H1N1....at least that is what they told me 15 min after the swab. Maybe I had both....I was as sick as I've ever been....And still can't smell things.

Joe Prescott wrote: The above is a case of 'the more you know, the more there is to know' and isn't quite correct (no offense). 

No offense taken at all. Glad to hear from someone who knows better!

Although these viruses often elicit lasting antibody responses, this does not necessarily lead to immunity, and in the case of beta-CoVs, often does not. 

Got a pointer to something I can read on that (antibodies present, but no immunity)?

The observations that there is a high degree of serological crossreactivity, does not translate to protection. You can run an ELISA against MERSCoV and it will detect SARS1 and SARS2 antibodies. Even after a 'cold' that is caused by a CoV (about 20% of colds), you develop high titer IgG, but this fails to protect against even closely-related cold-causing CoVs.

This is and will remain a BIG problem with serological testing; finding antibodies/assays that are specific for SARS-CoV2 and do not cross-react with other CoVs.
Joe

So I know there are a lot of issues with finding good antibody tests. I did see an article today claiming extremely good results (100% sensitivity, 99.6% selectivity), which seems to good to be true. Any thoughts? Any way to find out whether any of the selectivity results included those infected with other CoVs?

JNE wrote:

You are likely more familiar with the short-hand notation: there is little to no effective way to monetize things like CBD or essential oils for medical purposes. 

It has little to do with effectiveness, and nothing at all to do with competition against DIYers. Its all about the $$.

I see your point and there's something to it. But there isn't just the big pharma perspective. Other actors who's interests may differ - such as cannabis producers. That industry is growing, and some of those actor's interests may differ from that of big pharma. I see the point you make about it being harder to monetize YOUR efforts for your own direct profit from those trials, and it's true my examples don't address that issue. However, if you're a player in what could be called an up and coming field, you do have a general interest in promoting that field, even if the benefits may not all go directly to you, the field as a whole grow. And if you believe in your ability to cut yourself a decent pie of that field, there's an argument to be made there from an investor's perspective. There are precedents for that - such a dairy products, in Canada at least the dairy producer's association has financed a bunch of studies & marketing campaign based on un-branded dairy as a generic product (I'm guessing coz milk is, well, mostly just milk and hard to differentiate).

But yeah, maybe the cost/benefit analysis is such that this argument is heavily tilted towards the NO.

Then there are academics who don't care as much about those calculations, and one of the main reason why they haven't conducted similar studies before was that cannabis is so hard (legally speaking) to work with. This is increasingly less true, especially outside of the US. So I expect some of those answer may eventually come from that field, if not from industries....

JNE wrote:

I mean no offense when I say that you think that and Joshua McDaniel agrees with you because both of you clearly fail to understand the mentality of investors and the business world in general. 

No offense taken.  I see what you're saying.

You are likely more familiar with the short-hand notation: there is little to no effective way to monetize things like CBD or essential oils for medical purposes. 

It has little to do with effectiveness, and nothing at all to do with competition against DIYers. Its all about the $$.

This is where from my the medical perspective, even accounting for the difficulties in studying marijuana/THC/CBD, I just don't see their being any clinically significant data showing THC/CBD to have legitimate medical indication.  Much time, energy, and money went in to bringing Marinol/dronabinol and Epidiolex/canabidiol to market and they barely get used because of their limited benefit for a relatively small number of patients.  Again...if big pharma could have gotten a different indication for either of these two agents, or if they'd had an inkling in their new drug pipelines that they could have marketed a THC/CBD derivative for pain/anxiety/insomnia/etc etc, they would have jumped all over this.

Thus...these products remain in the realm of herbal supplements and touted by many but lacking significant clinical data.

Actually, CBD oil is almost as effective as ventilators are for treating serious cases of COVID-19.

Nearly all Covid-19 patients put on ventilators in New York's largest health system died, study finds

Zach Anatta wrote: Actually, CBD oil is almost as effective as ventilators are for treating serious cases of COVID-19.

Nearly all Covid-19 patients put on ventilators in New York's largest health system died, study finds

I was thinking this the whole time but tried to keep my mouth shut. Like, if someone needs a ventilator to breathe, doesn't that mean they're dead regardless? People were acting like these ventilators were the one thing keeping millions alive. That being said, looks like maybe 10% of people still do survive after being ventilator-ed, meaning it's not totally worthless I suppose. 

Moe Lester wrote:

I was thinking this the whole time but tried to keep my mouth shut. Like, if someone needs a ventilator to breathe, doesn't that mean they're dead regardless? People were acting like these ventilators were the one thing keeping millions alive. That being said, looks like maybe 10% of people still do survive after being ventilator-ed, meaning it's not totally worthless I suppose. 

Nope

Big Dick Johnson wrote:

If, IF,  any of this is true, it absolutely feathers in with that inconvenient truth about ventilators being an end stage last chance option. Oxygenating blood by any means necessary is your best chance. 

I don't think even a word of that is true... and I think quarantine is mostly bullshit at this point.

Upvote if you would sooner have COVID than herpes.

Zach Anatta wrote:

I don't think even a word of that is true... and I think quarantine is mostly bullshit at this point.

Upvote if you would sooner have COVID than herpes.

Willing to bet a lot of you stay at home protesters will walk away with herpes

B P wrote:

Willing to bet a lot of you stay at home protesters will walk away with herpes

Willing to bet you can't give a single objective reason why my comment was wrong (which is based off of facts, trumpster)

Moe Lester wrote:

Willing to bet you can't give a single objective reason why my comment was wrong (which is based off of facts, trumpster)

You’re a troll

B P wrote:

You’re a troll

Nice play.

Big Dick Johnson wrote:

If, IF,  any of this is true, it absolutely feathers in with that inconvenient truth about ventilators being an end stage last chance option. Oxygenating blood by any means necessary is your best chance. 

Where the fuck did you even find this garbage?

Troll in the Dungeon ! wrote:

Where the fuck did you even find this garbage?

My guess is Trump rally or gun show 

You know the thread is over when everyone is replying to big dick and molester...

Franck Vee wrote:

I see your point and there's something to it. But there isn't just the big pharma perspective. Other actors who's interests may differ - such as cannabis producers. That industry is growing, and some of those actor's interests may differ from that of big pharma. I see the point you make about it being harder to monetize YOUR efforts for your own direct profit from those trials, and it's true my examples don't address that issue. However, if you're a player in what could be called an up and coming field, you do have a general interest in promoting that field, even if the benefits may not all go directly to you, the field as a whole grow. And if you believe in your ability to cut yourself a decent pie of that field, there's an argument to be made there from an investor's perspective. There are precedents for that - such a dairy products, in Canada at least the dairy producer's association has financed a bunch of studies & marketing campaign based on un-branded dairy as a generic product (I'm guessing coz milk is, well, mostly just milk and hard to differentiate).

But yeah, maybe the cost/benefit analysis is such that this argument is heavily tilted towards the NO.

Then there are academics who don't care as much about those calculations, and one of the main reason why they haven't conducted similar studies before was that cannabis is so hard (legally speaking) to work with. This is increasingly less true, especially outside of the US. So I expect some of those answer may eventually come from that field, if not from industries....

Exactly what I was thinking....why doesn't some academic in a state where rec pot is legal do a study???