[OutsiderFan]

For those of you who think my rai·son d'ê·tre on this board is to be Dr. Doom and Gloom, the fact is all I care about is truth, and being efficient. Don't confuse wanting to be cautious, with having zero tolerance for shortsighted behavior that ends up costing more in the future than whatever the short-term bitching is about. With that out of the way...

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2550-z

Wow. I saw a video of someone breaking this down, or I wouldn't have understood it, but some quick takeaways:

- All coronaviruses have the same initial structure
- T cells attack specific proteins found in all coronaviruses
- These T cells have a long memory and offer more immunological protection than SARS-CoV-2 antibodies that disappear after a few months
- Possible opportunity to use T cell response rather than antibody response as basis for vaccine *

* Just getting a common cold coronavirus *could* create T cells that attack and kill SARS-CoV-2.

This is the first time I've learned something that makes me think we might actually beat this thing. All the treatments and other vaccine models have  not convinced me they are solutions as much as Bandaids. 

I should also add the researchers conclude amount of initial viral load is part of the immune response. Masks can allow us to be around others for limited time while reducing initial viral load to allow our immune systems to stave off Covid-19 form developing. 

Anyone who impugns science and truth needs to be absolutely flogged. I'm blown away how there are people around who can understand this stuff in such detail and nuance.  They should be celebrated as heroes, not decried as villains, because this kind of knowledge is what will save us!!!

[OutsiderFan]

For those of you who think my rai·son d'ê·tre on this board is to be Dr. Doom and Gloom, the fact is all I care about is truth, and being efficient. Don't confuse wanting to be cautious, with having zero tolerance for shortsighted behavior that ends up costing more in the future than whatever the short-term bitching is about. With that out of the way...

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2550-z

Wow. I saw a video of someone breaking this down, or I wouldn't have understood it, but some quick takeaways:

- All coronaviruses have the same initial structure
- T cells attack specific proteins found in all coronaviruses
- These T cells have a long memory and offer more immunological protection than SARS-CoV-2 antibodies that disappear after a few months
- Possible opportunity to use T cell response rather than antibody response as basis for vaccine *

* Just getting a common cold coronavirus *could* create T cells that attack and kill SARS-CoV-2.

This is the first time I've learned something that makes me think we might actually beat this thing. All the treatments and other vaccine models have  not convinced me they are solutions as much as Bandaids. 

I should also add the researchers conclude amount of initial viral load is part of the immune response. Masks can allow us to be around others for limited time while reducing initial viral load to allow our immune systems to stave off Covid-19 form developing. 

Anyone who impugns science and truth needs to be absolutely flogged. I'm blown away how there are people around who can understand this stuff in such detail and nuance.  They should be celebrated as heroes, not decried as villains, because this kind of knowledge is what will save us!!!

[82lsju]

For those of you who think my rai·son d'ê·tre on this board is to be Dr. Doom and Gloom, the fact is all I care about is truth, and being efficient. Don't confuse wanting to be cautious, with having zero tolerance for shortsighted behavior that ends up costing more in the future than whatever the short-term bitching is about. With that out of the way...

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2550-z

Wow. I saw a video of someone breaking this down, or I wouldn't have understood it, but some quick takeaways:

- All coronaviruses have the same initial structure
- T cells attack specific proteins found in all coronaviruses
- These T cells have a long memory and offer more immunological protection than SARS-CoV-2 antibodies that disappear after a few months
- Possible opportunity to use T cell response rather than antibody response as basis for vaccine *

* Just getting a common cold coronavirus *could* create T cells that attack and kill SARS-CoV-2.

This is the first time I've learned something that makes me think we might actually beat this thing. All the treatments and other vaccine models have  not convinced me they are solutions as much as Bandaids. 

I should also add the researchers conclude amount of initial viral load is part of the immune response. Masks can allow us to be around others for limited time while reducing initial viral load to allow our immune systems to stave off Covid-19 form developing. 

Anyone who impugns science and truth needs to be absolutely flogged. I'm blown away how there are people around who can understand this stuff in such detail and nuance.  They should be celebrated as heroes, not decried as villains, because this kind of knowledge is what will save us!!!

previous posts here on t-cells

https://thecardboard.org/board/showthrea...ht=t-cells

and

https://thecardboard.org/board/showthrea...ht=t-cells

[82lsju]

For those of you who think my rai·son d'ê·tre on this board is to be Dr. Doom and Gloom, the fact is all I care about is truth, and being efficient. Don't confuse wanting to be cautious, with having zero tolerance for shortsighted behavior that ends up costing more in the future than whatever the short-term bitching is about. With that out of the way...

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2550-z

Wow. I saw a video of someone breaking this down, or I wouldn't have understood it, but some quick takeaways:

- All coronaviruses have the same initial structure
- T cells attack specific proteins found in all coronaviruses
- These T cells have a long memory and offer more immunological protection than SARS-CoV-2 antibodies that disappear after a few months
- Possible opportunity to use T cell response rather than antibody response as basis for vaccine *

* Just getting a common cold coronavirus *could* create T cells that attack and kill SARS-CoV-2.

This is the first time I've learned something that makes me think we might actually beat this thing. All the treatments and other vaccine models have  not convinced me they are solutions as much as Bandaids. 

I should also add the researchers conclude amount of initial viral load is part of the immune response. Masks can allow us to be around others for limited time while reducing initial viral load to allow our immune systems to stave off Covid-19 form developing. 

Anyone who impugns science and truth needs to be absolutely flogged. I'm blown away how there are people around who can understand this stuff in such detail and nuance.  They should be celebrated as heroes, not decried as villains, because this kind of knowledge is what will save us!!!

previous posts here on t-cells

https://thecardboard.org/board/showthrea...ht=t-cells

and

https://thecardboard.org/board/showthrea...ht=t-cells

[BostonCard]

There are seven known coronaviridae that affect humans.  Four of them cause symptoms of the common cold; the other three are SARS, MERS, and COVID-19.  SARS and MERS have been kept under control, so we have never had a chance to see if someone gets it twice.  There are anecdotes of people getting COVID-19 twice, but so far there hasn't been enough time to see if immunity wanes in the majority of patients.  However, the four coronaviridae that cause common cold symptoms do not induce long lasting immunity and it is possible to become re-infected.

One other comment; if exposure to the four coronaviridae that produced the common cold was protective, you would expect newborns and young children to be particularly vulnerable to COVID-19, since they are least likely to have been exposed to other coronaviridae.  In fact, the youngest patients have the lowest mortality.

There is a possibility that prior exposure to one of the other coronaviridae produces non-neutralizing antibodies that makes it easier to become infected by COVID-19 through a mechanism called ADE (antibody-dependent enhancement).  A second theory is that you get some T cell immunity from prior exposure to one of the other coronviridae, but unfortunately it contributes to cytokine storm and the inflammatory response and is what makes some people much sicker.

BC

[BostonCard]

There are seven known coronaviridae that affect humans.  Four of them cause symptoms of the common cold; the other three are SARS, MERS, and COVID-19.  SARS and MERS have been kept under control, so we have never had a chance to see if someone gets it twice.  There are anecdotes of people getting COVID-19 twice, but so far there hasn't been enough time to see if immunity wanes in the majority of patients.  However, the four coronaviridae that cause common cold symptoms do not induce long lasting immunity and it is possible to become re-infected.

One other comment; if exposure to the four coronaviridae that produced the common cold was protective, you would expect newborns and young children to be particularly vulnerable to COVID-19, since they are least likely to have been exposed to other coronaviridae.  In fact, the youngest patients have the lowest mortality.

There is a possibility that prior exposure to one of the other coronaviridae produces non-neutralizing antibodies that makes it easier to become infected by COVID-19 through a mechanism called ADE (antibody-dependent enhancement).  A second theory is that you get some T cell immunity from prior exposure to one of the other coronviridae, but unfortunately it contributes to cytokine storm and the inflammatory response and is what makes some people much sicker.

BC

[oregontim]

I wonder whether 15 or so years of doing annual flu shots, each different from the others, might provide some measure of protection?

[oregontim]

I wonder whether 15 or so years of doing annual flu shots, each different from the others, might provide some measure of protection?

[OutsiderFan]

This is a reach, I know, but does anyone have any data about Covid-19 infection in dog owners? 

As previously mentioned from the Nature published study, if we have been exposed to other coronaviruses, even not SARS or SARS-CoV-2, we can have T-cells that recognize and launch attacks against SARS-CoV-2.

It appears betacoronavirus is carried by dogs and impacts their GI and is short-lived. Humans can be exposed to it and not develop infection symptoms. But such exposure apparently creates T-cell reaction to SARS-CoV-2 that activates antibodies and kills the virus.

Puppies are most susceptible to Canine Coranavirus (CaCoV), but all dogs can get it. Having had two puppies 8 years ago who went to dog parks and have since had their share of “questionable” poops, my odds of exposure to CaCoV are high. It might be possible that some very minimal exposure to SARS-CoV-2 might have triggered antibodies from a previous CaCoV exposure that would kill it. How would I get tested to see if this is the case? And even not exposed to SARS-CoV-2, is there a test to find any previous coronavirus exposure that doesn’t rely on finding antibodies? We know the body clears Covid antibodies relatively quickly, which has made this puzzle that much more vexing.

[OutsiderFan]

This is a reach, I know, but does anyone have any data about Covid-19 infection in dog owners? 

As previously mentioned from the Nature published study, if we have been exposed to other coronaviruses, even not SARS or SARS-CoV-2, we can have T-cells that recognize and launch attacks against SARS-CoV-2.

It appears betacoronavirus is carried by dogs and impacts their GI and is short-lived. Humans can be exposed to it and not develop infection symptoms. But such exposure apparently creates T-cell reaction to SARS-CoV-2 that activates antibodies and kills the virus.

Puppies are most susceptible to Canine Coranavirus (CaCoV), but all dogs can get it. Having had two puppies 8 years ago who went to dog parks and have since had their share of “questionable” poops, my odds of exposure to CaCoV are high. It might be possible that some very minimal exposure to SARS-CoV-2 might have triggered antibodies from a previous CaCoV exposure that would kill it. How would I get tested to see if this is the case? And even not exposed to SARS-CoV-2, is there a test to find any previous coronavirus exposure that doesn’t rely on finding antibodies? We know the body clears Covid antibodies relatively quickly, which has made this puzzle that much more vexing.

[akiddoc]

I wonder whether 15 or so years of doing annual flu shots, each different from the others, might provide some measure of protection?

Almost definitely not. Different family of viruses with very different surface proteins. The only real similarity is that both are RNA viruses, which doesn't mean much.

---

There are seven known coronaviridae that affect humans.  Four of them cause symptoms of the common cold; the other three are SARS, MERS, and COVID-19.  SARS and MERS have been kept under control, so we have never had a chance to see if someone gets it twice.  There are anecdotes of people getting COVID-19 twice, but so far there hasn't been enough time to see if immunity wanes in the majority of patients.  However, the four coronaviridae that cause common cold symptoms do not induce long lasting immunity and it is possible to become re-infected.

One other comment; if exposure to the four coronaviridae that produced the common cold was protective, you would expect newborns and young children to be particularly vulnerable to COVID-19, since they are least likely to have been exposed to other coronaviridae.  In fact, the youngest patients have the lowest mortality.

There is a possibility that prior exposure to one of the other coronaviridae produces non-neutralizing antibodies that makes it easier to become infected by COVID-19 through a mechanism called ADE (antibody-dependent enhancement).  A second theory is that you get some T cell immunity from prior exposure to one of the other coronviridae, but unfortunately it contributes to cytokine storm and the inflammatory response and is what makes some people much sicker.

BC

Not necessarily. Daycare aged children catch 6 to 8 viruses a year. They are much more likely to have contracted a recent respiratory virus than an adult. They most likely have higher antibody levels to Coronaviruses than their parents or grandparents, although I don't think much is known about T-cell immunity longevity with these viruses. 

Personally, I don't think that is the reason that kids have such low morbidity. I think it is the general lack of primed inflammatory pathways in children vs adults that accounts for the difference. A lot of the aging process seems to be aligned with inflammatory processes. Adults are already more likely to start an inflammatory cascade when they first encounter Covid-19.

[akiddoc]

I wonder whether 15 or so years of doing annual flu shots, each different from the others, might provide some measure of protection?

Almost definitely not. Different family of viruses with very different surface proteins. The only real similarity is that both are RNA viruses, which doesn't mean much.

---

There are seven known coronaviridae that affect humans.  Four of them cause symptoms of the common cold; the other three are SARS, MERS, and COVID-19.  SARS and MERS have been kept under control, so we have never had a chance to see if someone gets it twice.  There are anecdotes of people getting COVID-19 twice, but so far there hasn't been enough time to see if immunity wanes in the majority of patients.  However, the four coronaviridae that cause common cold symptoms do not induce long lasting immunity and it is possible to become re-infected.

One other comment; if exposure to the four coronaviridae that produced the common cold was protective, you would expect newborns and young children to be particularly vulnerable to COVID-19, since they are least likely to have been exposed to other coronaviridae.  In fact, the youngest patients have the lowest mortality.

There is a possibility that prior exposure to one of the other coronaviridae produces non-neutralizing antibodies that makes it easier to become infected by COVID-19 through a mechanism called ADE (antibody-dependent enhancement).  A second theory is that you get some T cell immunity from prior exposure to one of the other coronviridae, but unfortunately it contributes to cytokine storm and the inflammatory response and is what makes some people much sicker.

BC

Not necessarily. Daycare aged children catch 6 to 8 viruses a year. They are much more likely to have contracted a recent respiratory virus than an adult. They most likely have higher antibody levels to Coronaviruses than their parents or grandparents, although I don't think much is known about T-cell immunity longevity with these viruses. 

Personally, I don't think that is the reason that kids have such low morbidity. I think it is the general lack of primed inflammatory pathways in children vs adults that accounts for the difference. A lot of the aging process seems to be aligned with inflammatory processes. Adults are already more likely to start an inflammatory cascade when they first encounter Covid-19.

[Goose]

Maybe not the first reason for optimism, but I think a reason
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/20/world...-beta.html

Some Background
https://medium.com/swlh/interferon-respo...69a654b999

Who knows where this will lead, but if it can keep people out of hospitals that would be a big deal.

[Goose]

Maybe not the first reason for optimism, but I think a reason
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/20/world...-beta.html

Some Background
https://medium.com/swlh/interferon-respo...69a654b999

Who knows where this will lead, but if it can keep people out of hospitals that would be a big deal.

[BostonCard]

Not necessarily. Daycare aged children catch 6 to 8 viruses a year. They are much more likely to have contracted a recent respiratory virus than an adult. They most likely have higher antibody levels to Coronaviruses than their parents or grandparents, although I don't think much is known about T-cell immunity longevity with these viruses. 

The low risk of COVID-19 infection extends to birth.  But you are right that if ADE from non-COVID coronaviruses were an issue, you might expect it to be problematic for toddlers and school age kids who have a fair bit of recent exposure no non-COVID-19 coronaviridae.

BC

[BostonCard]

Not necessarily. Daycare aged children catch 6 to 8 viruses a year. They are much more likely to have contracted a recent respiratory virus than an adult. They most likely have higher antibody levels to Coronaviruses than their parents or grandparents, although I don't think much is known about T-cell immunity longevity with these viruses. 

The low risk of COVID-19 infection extends to birth.  But you are right that if ADE from non-COVID coronaviruses were an issue, you might expect it to be problematic for toddlers and school age kids who have a fair bit of recent exposure no non-COVID-19 coronaviridae.

BC

[fullmetal]

Owing to the law of large numbers, we should still not be surprised to see articles like this:

Texas coronavirus cases include more than 80 infants

Note: There have been a cumulative total of 85 infants testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 since the beginning of the outbreak.  The easy misrepresentation that there has been a recent surge of 85 infant cases is fortunately not true.  Certain "media outlets" have decided to misrepresent the other way and denounce the "mainstream media" as false and lying.

(Just checking, do infants express ACE2 receptors to the same proportion as adults?)

[fullmetal]

Owing to the law of large numbers, we should still not be surprised to see articles like this:

Texas coronavirus cases include more than 80 infants

Note: There have been a cumulative total of 85 infants testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 since the beginning of the outbreak.  The easy misrepresentation that there has been a recent surge of 85 infant cases is fortunately not true.  Certain "media outlets" have decided to misrepresent the other way and denounce the "mainstream media" as false and lying.

(Just checking, do infants express ACE2 receptors to the same proportion as adults?)

[M T]

Owing to the law of large numbers, we should still not be surprised to see articles like this:
Texas coronavirus cases include more than 80 infants

Stepping away from the knee-jerk reactions on all sides, that was 85 cases under age 1, which was just over 1% of all cases (under 8500 then, now 8800) in that county.  Infants under age 1 are about 1.14% of the US population.  If this 1% ratio is about the same elsewhere, that seems to suggest that infants are equally or perhaps even more vulnerable to getting an infection than other age groups.  (After all, how many under 1 babies are being exposed except to a caregiver?)

The first question is whether these infections are hospital-acquired or not.  If not, are they infections acquired from a parent?   If neither hospital acquired nor from a parent, then this may be a big issue.  (Someday, we may know what the long term effects are; we sure don't know them now.)

I'm not parenting an infant these days, so I don't know if parents are being advised how to deal with their infant should any of the caregivers get sick.  Anyone know?   Are parents being advised to try to keep their unmasked infants at home as much as feasible?  And advised on how to try to protect their baby from droplets/aerosols when they have to take them out?   Are parents advised to contact child-protective services for help when the parents are sick and may be unable to keep their infant from being exposed?

As for babies, NO MASKS.  DON'T LEAVE THEM IN THE CAR.

[M T]

Owing to the law of large numbers, we should still not be surprised to see articles like this:
Texas coronavirus cases include more than 80 infants

Stepping away from the knee-jerk reactions on all sides, that was 85 cases under age 1, which was just over 1% of all cases (under 8500 then, now 8800) in that county.  Infants under age 1 are about 1.14% of the US population.  If this 1% ratio is about the same elsewhere, that seems to suggest that infants are equally or perhaps even more vulnerable to getting an infection than other age groups.  (After all, how many under 1 babies are being exposed except to a caregiver?)

The first question is whether these infections are hospital-acquired or not.  If not, are they infections acquired from a parent?   If neither hospital acquired nor from a parent, then this may be a big issue.  (Someday, we may know what the long term effects are; we sure don't know them now.)

I'm not parenting an infant these days, so I don't know if parents are being advised how to deal with their infant should any of the caregivers get sick.  Anyone know?   Are parents being advised to try to keep their unmasked infants at home as much as feasible?  And advised on how to try to protect their baby from droplets/aerosols when they have to take them out?   Are parents advised to contact child-protective services for help when the parents are sick and may be unable to keep their infant from being exposed?

As for babies, NO MASKS.  DON'T LEAVE THEM IN THE CAR.

[lex24]

Owing to the law of large numbers, we should still not be surprised to see articles like this:

Texas coronavirus cases include more than 80 infants

Note: There have been a cumulative total of 85 infants testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 since the beginning of the outbreak.  The easy misrepresentation that there has been a recent surge of 85 infant cases is fortunately not true.  Certain "media outlets" have decided to misrepresent the other way and denounce the "mainstream media" as false and lying.

(Just checking, do infants express ACE2 receptors to the same proportion as adults?)

The story was reported in the context of the uptick in cases. And thus certainly set forth some implication that these were recent cases. Or at least allowed for the inference. Nothing in the story you posted says anything about it being cumulative. At the least, a poorly written story.

Moreover, there WERE outlets that reported that the 85 were from one week: https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-...ounty-amid

And the original source for the “misrepresentation” was CNN. (According to an article in the Texas Tribune):

“The 85 number was first reported Saturday by CNN, which quoted Annette Rodriguez, director of public health for Corpus Christi Nueces County, on Friday: “We currently have 85 babies under the age of one year in Nueces County that have all tested positive for COVID-19.

“These babies have not even had their first birthday yet,” she said. "Please help us stop the spread of this disease.”

That quote was later reported by The Texas Tribune and other outlets. As concern over the number spread, Canales, the top elected official in Nueces County, clarified that it was a cumulative number since the pandemic began.

"Stating this number during our press conference led many to believe that we had a sudden surge in infants under the age of one testing positive," she said. "We have NOT had a sudden surge of 85 infants testing positive."

Simply lousy reporting. An easy follow up before going to press is to get a clarification - to actually find out if it’s 85 “current” as in at this time. Or whether “currently” meant the current cumulative total. But it’s more impt to get it first than it is to get it right.

So if your “certain news sources” comment is referring to right wing media attacking the story as a misrepresentation when you suggest in fact it was not - let me suggest that the original reporting was at the least, misleading. My guess is not purposely, accidentally. (Although it also fits within CNNs confirmation bias) But nonetheless the implication was absolutely false news. The criticism of the reportage justified.

 

---

Owing to the law of large numbers, we should still not be surprised to see articles like this:
Texas coronavirus cases include more than 80 infants

Stepping away from the knee-jerk reactions on all sides, that was 85 cases under age 1, which was just over 1% of all cases (under 8500 then, now 8800) in that county.  Infants under age 1 are about 1.14% of the US population.  If this 1% ratio is about the same elsewhere, that seems to suggest that infants are equally or perhaps even more vulnerable to getting an infection than other age groups.  (After all, how many under 1 babies are being exposed except to a caregiver?)

The first question is whether these infections are hospital-acquired or not.  If not, are they infections acquired from a parent?   If neither hospital acquired nor from a parent, then this may be a big issue.  (Someday, we may know what the long term effects are; we sure don't know them now.

I'm not parenting an infant these days, so I don't know if parents are being advised how to deal with their infant should any of the caregivers get sick.  Anyone know?   Are parents being advised to try to keep their unmasked infants at home as much as feasible?  And advised on how to try to protect their baby from droplets/aerosols when they have to take them out?   Are parents advised to contact child-protective services for help when the parents are sick and may be unable to keep their infant from being exposed?

As for babies, NO MASKS.  DON'T LEAVE THEM IN THE CAR.

And yet, I’m not aware of one baby in Calif dying from Covid.   Which to me is rather remarkable quite honestly. Of course babies immune system‘s are not developed they get all sorts of sicknesses. So I’m not surprised they get Covid.  Thankfully it does not seem to impact babies much.

[lex24]

Owing to the law of large numbers, we should still not be surprised to see articles like this:

Texas coronavirus cases include more than 80 infants

Note: There have been a cumulative total of 85 infants testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 since the beginning of the outbreak.  The easy misrepresentation that there has been a recent surge of 85 infant cases is fortunately not true.  Certain "media outlets" have decided to misrepresent the other way and denounce the "mainstream media" as false and lying.

(Just checking, do infants express ACE2 receptors to the same proportion as adults?)

The story was reported in the context of the uptick in cases. And thus certainly set forth some implication that these were recent cases. Or at least allowed for the inference. Nothing in the story you posted says anything about it being cumulative. At the least, a poorly written story.

Moreover, there WERE outlets that reported that the 85 were from one week: https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-...ounty-amid

And the original source for the “misrepresentation” was CNN. (According to an article in the Texas Tribune):

“The 85 number was first reported Saturday by CNN, which quoted Annette Rodriguez, director of public health for Corpus Christi Nueces County, on Friday: “We currently have 85 babies under the age of one year in Nueces County that have all tested positive for COVID-19.

“These babies have not even had their first birthday yet,” she said. "Please help us stop the spread of this disease.”

That quote was later reported by The Texas Tribune and other outlets. As concern over the number spread, Canales, the top elected official in Nueces County, clarified that it was a cumulative number since the pandemic began.

"Stating this number during our press conference led many to believe that we had a sudden surge in infants under the age of one testing positive," she said. "We have NOT had a sudden surge of 85 infants testing positive."

Simply lousy reporting. An easy follow up before going to press is to get a clarification - to actually find out if it’s 85 “current” as in at this time. Or whether “currently” meant the current cumulative total. But it’s more impt to get it first than it is to get it right.

So if your “certain news sources” comment is referring to right wing media attacking the story as a misrepresentation when you suggest in fact it was not - let me suggest that the original reporting was at the least, misleading. My guess is not purposely, accidentally. (Although it also fits within CNNs confirmation bias) But nonetheless the implication was absolutely false news. The criticism of the reportage justified.

 

---

Owing to the law of large numbers, we should still not be surprised to see articles like this:
Texas coronavirus cases include more than 80 infants

Stepping away from the knee-jerk reactions on all sides, that was 85 cases under age 1, which was just over 1% of all cases (under 8500 then, now 8800) in that county.  Infants under age 1 are about 1.14% of the US population.  If this 1% ratio is about the same elsewhere, that seems to suggest that infants are equally or perhaps even more vulnerable to getting an infection than other age groups.  (After all, how many under 1 babies are being exposed except to a caregiver?)

The first question is whether these infections are hospital-acquired or not.  If not, are they infections acquired from a parent?   If neither hospital acquired nor from a parent, then this may be a big issue.  (Someday, we may know what the long term effects are; we sure don't know them now.

I'm not parenting an infant these days, so I don't know if parents are being advised how to deal with their infant should any of the caregivers get sick.  Anyone know?   Are parents being advised to try to keep their unmasked infants at home as much as feasible?  And advised on how to try to protect their baby from droplets/aerosols when they have to take them out?   Are parents advised to contact child-protective services for help when the parents are sick and may be unable to keep their infant from being exposed?

As for babies, NO MASKS.  DON'T LEAVE THEM IN THE CAR.

And yet, I’m not aware of one baby in Calif dying from Covid.   Which to me is rather remarkable quite honestly. Of course babies immune system‘s are not developed they get all sorts of sicknesses. So I’m not surprised they get Covid.  Thankfully it does not seem to impact babies much.

[M T]

Thankfully it does not seem to impact babies much.

I hope you are an prescient oracle.  I would have said "yet seem".

[M T]

Thankfully it does not seem to impact babies much.

I hope you are an prescient oracle.  I would have said "yet seem".

[lex24]

Thankfully it does not seem to impact babies much.

I hope you are an prescient oracle.  I would have said "yet seem".

Sorry, I know it borders on illegal on this board to suggest anything remotely optimistic. Not one baby in CA has died from the virus.  And while I may have missed it, I haven’t seen stories indicating hospitalization or any other serious consequence from the virus.  I believe I’m safe in saying that the overwhelming weight of evidence today is the virus does not impact very young kids.

Edit - in fact no one under 17 has died in Ca from the virus.

[lex24]

Thankfully it does not seem to impact babies much.

I hope you are an prescient oracle.  I would have said "yet seem".

Sorry, I know it borders on illegal on this board to suggest anything remotely optimistic. Not one baby in CA has died from the virus.  And while I may have missed it, I haven’t seen stories indicating hospitalization or any other serious consequence from the virus.  I believe I’m safe in saying that the overwhelming weight of evidence today is the virus does not impact very young kids.

Edit - in fact no one under 17 has died in Ca from the virus.

[M T]

Thankfully it does not seem to impact babies much.

I hope you are an prescient oracle.  I would have said "yet seem".

Sorry, I know it borders on illegal on this board to suggest anything remotely optimistic. Not one baby in CA has died from the virus.  And while I may have missed it, I haven’t seen stories indicating hospitalization or any other serious consequence from the virus.  I believe I’m safe in saying that the overwhelming weight of evidence today is the virus does not impact very young kids.

Edit - in fact no one under 17 has died in Ca from the virus.

I don't think you understand my concern.  It is not that tomorrow's new infections will need hospitalization for the initial course of the disease.  It is that yesterday's infections, like rheumatic fever, will impact those infected throughout their lives.   We still can't know.

[M T]

Thankfully it does not seem to impact babies much.

I hope you are an prescient oracle.  I would have said "yet seem".

Sorry, I know it borders on illegal on this board to suggest anything remotely optimistic. Not one baby in CA has died from the virus.  And while I may have missed it, I haven’t seen stories indicating hospitalization or any other serious consequence from the virus.  I believe I’m safe in saying that the overwhelming weight of evidence today is the virus does not impact very young kids.

Edit - in fact no one under 17 has died in Ca from the virus.

I don't think you understand my concern.  It is not that tomorrow's new infections will need hospitalization for the initial course of the disease.  It is that yesterday's infections, like rheumatic fever, will impact those infected throughout their lives.   We still can't know.

[oregontim]

Sorry, I know it borders on illegal on this board to suggest anything remotely optimistic. Not one baby in CA has died from the virus.  And while I may have missed it, I haven’t seen stories indicating hospitalization or any other serious consequence from the virus.  I believe I’m safe in saying that the overwhelming weight of evidence today is the virus does not impact very young kids.

Whoa, please don't apologize for good news. Many of us are (in some cases, literally) dying for some good news. There's no problem if it's based on fact, preferably scientific fact. I'll be joining the cheer if our [moronic] president finally veers towards leadership and unity and we start managing our way out of a crisis, as a nation united for a common cause.

[oregontim]

Sorry, I know it borders on illegal on this board to suggest anything remotely optimistic. Not one baby in CA has died from the virus.  And while I may have missed it, I haven’t seen stories indicating hospitalization or any other serious consequence from the virus.  I believe I’m safe in saying that the overwhelming weight of evidence today is the virus does not impact very young kids.

Whoa, please don't apologize for good news. Many of us are (in some cases, literally) dying for some good news. There's no problem if it's based on fact, preferably scientific fact. I'll be joining the cheer if our [moronic] president finally veers towards leadership and unity and we start managing our way out of a crisis, as a nation united for a common cause.

[magnus]

Sorry, I know it borders on illegal on this board to suggest anything remotely optimistic.

Exactly.  Why are you jinxing us?!
=)

[magnus]

Sorry, I know it borders on illegal on this board to suggest anything remotely optimistic.

Exactly.  Why are you jinxing us?!
=)

[lex24]

Thankfully it does not seem to impact babies much.

I hope you are an prescient oracle.  I would have said "yet seem".

Sorry, I know it borders on illegal on this board to suggest anything remotely optimistic. Not one baby in CA has died from the virus.  And while I may have missed it, I haven’t seen stories indicating hospitalization or any other serious consequence from the virus.  I believe I’m safe in saying that the overwhelming weight of evidence today is the virus does not impact very young kids.

Edit - in fact no one under 17 has died in Ca from the virus.

I don't think you understand my concern.  It is not that tomorrow's new infections will need hospitalization for the initial course of the disease.  It is that yesterday's infections, like rheumatic fever, will impact those infected throughout their lives.   We still can't know.

Yes, I understand your concern.  And you’re right as I’ve said repeatedly there are a lot of unknown unknowns. I choose to take an optimistic approach in moving forward. The fact that kids don’t seem to be impacted from a commonsense standpoint at least suggests that perhaps they won’t have long-term impact as well. Which I know we all hope to be the case. Obviously I’m not suggesting that we don’t take precautions for anyone – including babies.

[lex24]

Thankfully it does not seem to impact babies much.

I hope you are an prescient oracle.  I would have said "yet seem".

Sorry, I know it borders on illegal on this board to suggest anything remotely optimistic. Not one baby in CA has died from the virus.  And while I may have missed it, I haven’t seen stories indicating hospitalization or any other serious consequence from the virus.  I believe I’m safe in saying that the overwhelming weight of evidence today is the virus does not impact very young kids.

Edit - in fact no one under 17 has died in Ca from the virus.

I don't think you understand my concern.  It is not that tomorrow's new infections will need hospitalization for the initial course of the disease.  It is that yesterday's infections, like rheumatic fever, will impact those infected throughout their lives.   We still can't know.

Yes, I understand your concern.  And you’re right as I’ve said repeatedly there are a lot of unknown unknowns. I choose to take an optimistic approach in moving forward. The fact that kids don’t seem to be impacted from a commonsense standpoint at least suggests that perhaps they won’t have long-term impact as well. Which I know we all hope to be the case. Obviously I’m not suggesting that we don’t take precautions for anyone – including babies.

[akiddoc]

Thankfully it does not seem to impact babies much.

I hope you are an prescient oracle.  I would have said "yet seem".

Sorry, I know it borders on illegal on this board to suggest anything remotely optimistic. Not one baby in CA has died from the virus.  And while I may have missed it, I haven’t seen stories indicating hospitalization or any other serious consequence from the virus.  I believe I’m safe in saying that the overwhelming weight of evidence today is the virus does not impact very young kids.

Edit - in fact no one under 17 has died in Ca from the virus.

I don't think you understand my concern.  It is not that tomorrow's new infections will need hospitalization for the initial course of the disease.  It is that yesterday's infections, like rheumatic fever, will impact those infected throughout their lives.   We still can't know.

Yes, I understand your concern.  And you’re right as I’ve said repeatedly there are a lot of unknown unknowns. I choose to take an optimistic approach in moving forward. The fact that kids don’t seem to be impacted from a commonsense standpoint at least suggests that perhaps they won’t have long-term impact as well. Which I know we all hope to be the case. Obviously I’m not suggesting that we don’t take precautions for anyone – including babies.

There is no particular reason to think that babies will have any more long term effects from this Coronavirus than from the other common Coronaviruses. And it is true that young children are not getting very sick for the most part when they catch this virus. There are deaths - but the stats I have seen show that 80% of Pediatric deaths have come in children with pre-existing severe medical issues. Most children do not have those issues. 

Rheumatic fever is a very rare disease that occurs after a bacterial infection - with Group A Streptococcus - and I have seen it exactly once in my entire career. 

I mentioned above that baseline inflammation may have a lot to do with how one fares with this infection. Here is a paper speculating about that issue:

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/369/6501/256

[akiddoc]

Thankfully it does not seem to impact babies much.

I hope you are an prescient oracle.  I would have said "yet seem".

Sorry, I know it borders on illegal on this board to suggest anything remotely optimistic. Not one baby in CA has died from the virus.  And while I may have missed it, I haven’t seen stories indicating hospitalization or any other serious consequence from the virus.  I believe I’m safe in saying that the overwhelming weight of evidence today is the virus does not impact very young kids.

Edit - in fact no one under 17 has died in Ca from the virus.

I don't think you understand my concern.  It is not that tomorrow's new infections will need hospitalization for the initial course of the disease.  It is that yesterday's infections, like rheumatic fever, will impact those infected throughout their lives.   We still can't know.

Yes, I understand your concern.  And you’re right as I’ve said repeatedly there are a lot of unknown unknowns. I choose to take an optimistic approach in moving forward. The fact that kids don’t seem to be impacted from a commonsense standpoint at least suggests that perhaps they won’t have long-term impact as well. Which I know we all hope to be the case. Obviously I’m not suggesting that we don’t take precautions for anyone – including babies.

There is no particular reason to think that babies will have any more long term effects from this Coronavirus than from the other common Coronaviruses. And it is true that young children are not getting very sick for the most part when they catch this virus. There are deaths - but the stats I have seen show that 80% of Pediatric deaths have come in children with pre-existing severe medical issues. Most children do not have those issues. 

Rheumatic fever is a very rare disease that occurs after a bacterial infection - with Group A Streptococcus - and I have seen it exactly once in my entire career. 

I mentioned above that baseline inflammation may have a lot to do with how one fares with this infection. Here is a paper speculating about that issue:

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/369/6501/256

[M T]

There is no particular reason to think that babies will have any more long term effects from this Coronavirus than from the other common Coronaviruses.

The same thing could be said about adults, right?

The problem is that this Coronavirus IS causing different effects than the others.  (I don't know, do the other Coronaviruses attack the same protein? I would guess not.).    I don't want to draw too close a parallel to rheumatic fever -- different bugs, but the same immune system possibly causing damage.   It is more an example of a disease with delayed (10-20yr) consequences.   (I am very glad that in 1st world countries in the 21st century, good medicine and the use of antibiotics have reduced rheumatic fever to a medical rarity!)

The point is that we have only a few months of experience.  This disease is behaving quite differently, or rather, our bodies are reacting to it differently than we've seen.

I think it is a significant risk to force kids (or adults) into scenarios where many will get an infection of a disease we have no history with.


By the way, some months ago I mentioned a parallel to trying to understand yellow fever.  I just reread an 1852 account of an outbreak of yellow fever, where the author (a MD) was describing everything that was going on in the town (wind & weather, a big excavation, an old, rotten building torn down, the nature of the spreading, some localization of the spread but some exceptions, some days where a large number of people got sick, some differences in who was getting sick, etc.), trying to understand how it was spreading.  Of course, we know now that mosquitoes were the vector, but at the time they didn't.   It feels eerily similar with our continued struggles to control the spread.   Looking back 170 years, it feels sort like watching a blindfolded person trying to pin the tail on the donkey.  But today, we're the ones with the blindfold, but we're starting to peek a little now.

[M T]

There is no particular reason to think that babies will have any more long term effects from this Coronavirus than from the other common Coronaviruses.

The same thing could be said about adults, right?

The problem is that this Coronavirus IS causing different effects than the others.  (I don't know, do the other Coronaviruses attack the same protein? I would guess not.).    I don't want to draw too close a parallel to rheumatic fever -- different bugs, but the same immune system possibly causing damage.   It is more an example of a disease with delayed (10-20yr) consequences.   (I am very glad that in 1st world countries in the 21st century, good medicine and the use of antibiotics have reduced rheumatic fever to a medical rarity!)

The point is that we have only a few months of experience.  This disease is behaving quite differently, or rather, our bodies are reacting to it differently than we've seen.

I think it is a significant risk to force kids (or adults) into scenarios where many will get an infection of a disease we have no history with.


By the way, some months ago I mentioned a parallel to trying to understand yellow fever.  I just reread an 1852 account of an outbreak of yellow fever, where the author (a MD) was describing everything that was going on in the town (wind & weather, a big excavation, an old, rotten building torn down, the nature of the spreading, some localization of the spread but some exceptions, some days where a large number of people got sick, some differences in who was getting sick, etc.), trying to understand how it was spreading.  Of course, we know now that mosquitoes were the vector, but at the time they didn't.   It feels eerily similar with our continued struggles to control the spread.   Looking back 170 years, it feels sort like watching a blindfolded person trying to pin the tail on the donkey.  But today, we're the ones with the blindfold, but we're starting to peek a little now.