m7mcfc
Well-Known Member
Explain how to me?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
COVID-19 — Coronavirus
- Thread starter urban genie
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Explain how to me?
The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is credited with saving 125m+ lives through their global campaigns to vaccinate children, and also distribute medicines around the world.
They've spent about $60 Billion on it over 20 years.
They are one of the most effective charities in the world because they don't just give out money but create these snowballing fundraising operations that pick up a lot of government money as well. There's a really good article about it here -
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/11/21133298/bill-gates-melinda-gates-money-foundation
You are conflating two separate questions.
Susceptibility to infection and susceptibility to severe disease.
No one knows or can model how previous coronavirus infections can affect either.
Blood group may well affect severity of disease but is not thought to affect susceptibility to actual infection it isn't impossible but then not are a lot of random variables.
I can see that, from the title of the second reference I gave, you might think that I am conflating the two. However, the section that deals with blood type is fairly clear, including -
"Blood type seems to be a predictor of how susceptible a person is to contracting SARS-CoV-2, though scientists haven't found a link between blood type per se and severity of disease.
Jiao Zhao, of The Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen, and colleagues looked at blood types of 2,173 patients with COVID-19 in three hospitals in Wuhan, China, as well as blood types of more than 23,000 non-COVID-19 individuals in Wuhan and Shenzhen. They found that individuals with blood types in the A group (A-positive, A-negative and AB-positive, AB-negative) were at a higher risk of contracting the disease compared with non-A-group types. People with O blood types (O-negative and O-positive) had a lower risk of getting the infection compared with non-O blood types, the scientists wrote in the preprint database medRxiv on March 27; the study has yet to be reviewed by peers in the field.
In a more recent study of blood type and COVID-19, published online April 11 to medRxiv, scientists looked at 1,559 people tested for SARS-CoV-2 at New York Presbyterian hospital; of those, 682 tested positive. Individuals with A blood types (A-positive and A-negative) were 33% more likely to test positive than other blood types and both O-negative and O-positive blood types were less likely to test positive than other blood groups. (There's a 95% chance that the increase in risk ranges from 7% to 67% more likely.) Though only 68 individuals with an AB blood type were included, the results showed this group was also less likely than others to test positive for COVID-19."
This is a review article and so the full details of the experimental design are not given. The hospital cases, it could be argued, will represent more serious cases and so both susceptibility to infection and susceptibility to severe disease may be factors. However, on the face of it, the 23,000 sample tests appear to be based on antibody testing in the community which would link it to susceptibility to infection. It is likely, if my suggestion is correct about cell surfaces having different levels of resistance to viral attachment, that both types of susceptibility could be linked. There are, of course, other factors relating to both types of susceptibility.
The Scottish figures that I started with, to me at any rate, suggest a much lower level of infectivity than expected, which needs an explanation.
Science is incremental so I suspect it developed from the study of similar structures in cell membranes...protein channels that allow for the passage of small molecules into and out of cells.I had to read this several times just get a basic grasp of its point. There's some incredibly smart people on this planet. It's hard to imagine what the basis would be to even discover this as an option, let alone be able to think far enough ahead to think it's viable too. Amazing.
Looks like this could explain why deaths in care homes aren't coming down compared to hospital deaths.
why are they doing this? what is the point?
Fair enough all the commentary I had read suggested blood groups are associated with severe disease.I can see that, from the title of the second reference I gave, you might think that I am conflating the two. However, the section that deals with blood type is fairly clear, including -
"Blood type seems to be a predictor of how susceptible a person is to contracting SARS-CoV-2, though scientists haven't found a link between blood type per se and severity of disease.
Jiao Zhao, of The Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen, and colleagues looked at blood types of 2,173 patients with COVID-19 in three hospitals in Wuhan, China, as well as blood types of more than 23,000 non-COVID-19 individuals in Wuhan and Shenzhen. They found that individuals with blood types in the A group (A-positive, A-negative and AB-positive, AB-negative) were at a higher risk of contracting the disease compared with non-A-group types. People with O blood types (O-negative and O-positive) had a lower risk of getting the infection compared with non-O blood types, the scientists wrote in the preprint database medRxiv on March 27; the study has yet to be reviewed by peers in the field.
In a more recent study of blood type and COVID-19, published online April 11 to medRxiv, scientists looked at 1,559 people tested for SARS-CoV-2 at New York Presbyterian hospital; of those, 682 tested positive. Individuals with A blood types (A-positive and A-negative) were 33% more likely to test positive than other blood types and both O-negative and O-positive blood types were less likely to test positive than other blood groups. (There's a 95% chance that the increase in risk ranges from 7% to 67% more likely.) Though only 68 individuals with an AB blood type were included, the results showed this group was also less likely than others to test positive for COVID-19."
This is a review article and so the full details of the experimental design are not given. The hospital cases, it could be argued, will represent more serious cases and so both susceptibility to infection and susceptibility to severe disease may be factors. However, on the face of it, the 23,000 sample tests appear to be based on antibody testing in the community which would link it to susceptibility to infection. It is likely, if my suggestion is correct about cell surfaces having different levels of resistance to viral attachment, that both types of susceptibility could be linked. There are, of course, other factors relating to both types of susceptibility.
The Scottish figures that I started with, to me at any rate, suggest a much lower level of infectivity than expected, which needs an explanation.
True_Blue69
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Jun 2008
- Messages
- 4,278
why are they doing this? what is the point?
It does seem quite bizarre, I wonder what the timeline on this is. If someone has it 6 months ago and then dies, would this still go down as covid? Excess deaths is the best marker and we are now under what is expected at this time of the year on average which is what I go off.
I have nothing against Bill, quite admire people like him actually and there’s nothing wrong with his point there but you don’t actually believe that do you?Bill Gates has saved more lives than any other human in history and the thanks he gets is right wing wackjobs using the home computers he pioneered to shit on him.
I have nothing against Bill, quite admire people like him actually but you don’t believe that do you?
. The man has been the driving force behind child immunisation rates skyrocketing and massively cutting TB and Aids deaths.
Last edited:
why are they doing this? what is the point?
It does seem quite bizarre, I wonder what the timeline on this is. If someone has it 6 months ago and then dies, would this still go down as covid? Excess deaths is the best marker and we are now under what is expected at this time of the year on average which is what I go off.
It's because they are terrified of being accused of cooking the books to underplay deaths, and this is a way they can come up with a number without insane amounts of man-power analysing each death.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.