LinvilleGorge

If she actually had something, she should've been smart enough to pass the info along to someone who's credibility isn't already thoroughly shot to hell. Everything she has is hearsay with no evidence to back it up, but we're supposed to believe any and all evidence against her was a complete fabrication? C'mon...

Maybe, just maaaaayyyyyybe, it's because a lot of really terrible diseases have been virtually eliminated by widespread use of vaccines.

Yeah, what do you expect someone to say when caught for falsifying data and fired for it? Her reputation and credibility were ruined. At that point, she pretty much has to double down and scream conspiracy.

Yeah, I watched it yesterday. I'm not saying she's wrong on everything, but I'm not buying some grand conspiracy theory from someone confirmed to have falsified research data.

This is the anti-vaxxer who has spent time in jail and basically threw away her career and credibility creating blatantly fraudulent clinical trial data.

If I had this poo, I was probably a super spreader. I traveled a poo ton in Q1 and I had COVID-like symptoms during much of the travel. All over the Seattle area in mid-January (where I think I picked it up), Spokane, all over Arizona (Phoenix area, Sedona, Flagstaff, Prescott), all over Colorado, North Carolina, Florida, Dallas area, Costa Rica. I didn't suspect COVID until well after I was fully recovered. While I had symptoms, the protocols were that you weren't suspected of having COVID unless you had traveled to an area with confirmed outbreak. At the time, when I had traveled to Seattle that was prior to their confirmed outbreak.

I paid out of pocket at National Jewish Hospital down in Denver. They developed their own test. They're one of the top respiratory hospitals in the nation.

Yeah, there's a chance it could be due to similar antibodies from some other flu/cold bug. That's why I'm curious to see how my wife's results come back. If hers come back definitive one way or the other then I'll assume I'm in the same both since we had the same bug back in mid-late January. If hers come back borderline as well then I'll follow up to see exactly what the results were. Were we just shy of the threshold and basically deemed not a positive result by technicality or were we off by a mile?

Yeah, for lots of viruses infection doesn't necessarily equal immunity. You have antibodies that provide resistance for a period of time, but they don't last forever. Here's the explanation of my test results per my test results: BORDERLINE. Borderline results show that the test detected some IgM antibodies. The level of antibodies found are below the level used to indicate positive results. These results may indicate a very early infection or cross reactivity. So, basically I either had it long enough ago for my antibodies to drop below the threshold (I think I had it in mid-late January) or it's a false positive. My wife took the test the same day but her results haven't come in yet. Curious to see hers. If hers are borderline as well, I'll follow up to try to get more details.

Basically, I interpret my results as I likely had it and now my antibodies are fading to the point that I'm likely now able to be reinfected or that I'll soon be to that point. In all likelihood, all the lockdown did for me personally was cost me my job and kept me isolating long enough to have my resistance to the virus dissipate. Fuging awesome.

Well, that was useless. My test came back as borderline. Some antibodies detected, but in a quantity insufficient to confirm a positive test. So... I don't know?

The reality is that those are financial decisions. If it's wrong, they've wasted a bunch of time, money, and other resources. In this situation, they're probably getting enough financial backing to make it worth their while regardless.

If they pull this off it would be beyond unprecedented. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coronavirus-vaccine-oxford-university-scientists-september/?fbclid=IwAR3eZ3iItiOFa2VRfPh21pde-Iuco230GOvbWYvRQjslwSQNGxVGuqhFmII#app

I'm not advocating a complete return to normal, but we can start opening up a lot of businesses while wearing masks and implementing basic social distancing standards. I don't expect a return to full normalcy before next summer, but we have to start evolving in that direction and making the best of the "new normal" in the meantime. The trickiest part to me is handling things like the restaurant industry, bars, theaters, etc. I've seen a lot of suggestions about allowing those businesses to open up at reduced capacity but I'm honestly not sure if that's economically sustainable for them. Restaurant margins are already razor thin. I just can't foresee a scenario where the service industry doesn't just get absolutely crushed by this thing. There are a LOT of bars and restaurants out there whose doors will never reopen (under current ownership, that is).

Yeah, I had to run some errands yesterday and I'd say it was 50/50 on people wearing masks vs. not and it seemed to me that the the older someone was the lower their odds of wearing a mask and quite frankly that straight up pisses me off. These stay at home mandates are primarily to protect at-risk populations. I've been furloughed from my day job and had a promising start up business basically put on hold because of these mandates. So when I see members of at-risk populations out and about pretty much going on with life as usual, well... it makes me want to punch them right in the fuging throat.

I supported the effort to flatten the curve to avoid the swamping of our healthcare system. The data at the time supported it. The thing is that with a novel virus, the data is ever changing and rapidly evolving. The more and more data that we get on this virus, the less dangerous it looks to non-vulnerable populations. As the data evolves, the strategies, tactics, and policies also have to evolve. The experts weren't "wrong". They have to base their decisions off of the data currently available. The early data was both limited (as is all early data) but also highly unreliable. Now I'm hoping that egos don't get in the way of that evolvement. Widespread testing is still the key to protecting those vulnerable populations, but there really does need to be a shift toward getting back to some type of normalcy while making efforts to protect those vulnerable populations and if that means shifting currently available testing resources to further the protection of those vulnerable populations then so be it.

This guy irks the poo out of me, but I hope he kicks COVID's ass... and doesn't spread it to anyone else.

Because practically the only thing eastern NC gets right is BBQ and that poo is delicious.

I don't know about that.

With the notable exceptions of WV, eastern TN, and eastern KY there seems to be a strong correlation between mountainous terrain and lower obesity rates. Outside of those areas, you can pretty much look at the map and see the imprint of the Rockies and Appalachians.

Do you think anything has substantially changed since then?

Not exclusive, but there's a helluva concentration.

Take to our decks and balconies and BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! LOL!

Yeah, if you go to SF or LA or Orange County or San Diego, it's gonna fit the stereotype. Outside of those areas.... eh, not so much.

When people say "California" what they're really talking about coastal California from San Francisco south through San Diego. I think a lot of people would be shocked by what they'd find in California outside of that relatively small geographical area.