What is good & what went wrong in Janatha Curfew

[Catabolite]

Just now, DummyVariable said:

What percent of the population before herd immunity kicks in then?

Over 60-80 percent should develop resistance (recover completely). Not die from it. 

[DummyVariable]

1 minute ago, Catabolite said:

Over 60-80 percent should develop resistance (recover completely). Not die from it. 

20-40% can die then 

[Arey_Neekundhi]

9 hours ago, dasari4kntr said:

GOOD SIDE...

1. Central Government, is recognizing the threat reacting when it is in Stage 2situation. (assuming indie is in stage 2).

2. States like Telangana..etc (not Andhra), understood the threat completely, and co-operating and doing good job by locking down...

 

BAD SIDE..

1. didn't explain the importance of flatten the curve, social distance..

2. encouraged the dramatic actions like clapping..etc, which resulted to public celebrations/gatherings again..(Mr Modi, you should have asked public donations for hospital improvements..)

 

note: i am not crying on INDIA..i am well wisher of INDIA...

Pusa guchinatlu cheppaala janaalaki ?? Aa maathram burra ledha ardham chesukotaniki ?? 
 

minimum sense anedhi kuda lekunda chesthuntaaru- entha sepu cheppina waste. 
 

 

Free ga oka 5 mins appreciate cheyamantene adhedho thappudu pani chesthunnatlu mana DB lo ne sense lekunda comedy chesinaaru - inka money donation ante picha comedy  !! 

[Catabolite]

20 minutes ago, DummyVariable said:

20-40% can die then 

No, the herd immunity of the 60-80% will protect the remaining 20-40%. That's why we need to ensure that the high risk group (elderly) is in the 20-40%. 

[DummyVariable]

29 minutes ago, Catabolite said:

No, the herd immunity of the 60-80% will protect the remaining 20-40%. That's why we need to ensure that the high risk group (elderly) is in the 20-40%. 

60-80% should get infected then

[Catabolite]

Just now, DummyVariable said:

60-80% should get infected then

Correct, if we move to third stage that's the only way out. 

[jajjanaka_jandri]

9 hours ago, dasari4kntr said:

GOOD SIDE...

1. Central Government, is recognizing the threat reacting when it is in Stage 2situation. (assuming indie is in stage 2).

2. States like Telangana..etc (not Andhra), understood the threat completely, and co-operating and doing good job by locking down...

 

BAD SIDE..

1. didn't explain the importance of flatten the curve, social distance..

2. encouraged the dramatic actions like clapping..etc, which resulted to public celebrations/gatherings again..(Mr Modi, you should have asked public donations for hospital improvements..)

 

note: i am not crying on INDIA..i am well wisher of INDIA...

adv: 5pm daaka intlo undadam..

disadv: saibaba bandi bajana laga andaru kalisi claps kottukuntu roads lo thirgining, smh

[VinthaAnubhuthi]

Lol. You are expecting too much from the present Govt.

[ring_master]

5 minutes ago, VinthaAnubhuthi said:

Lol. You are expecting too much from the present Govt.

Ya Ya @RPG gaadini PM cheyaali India...Italy nunchi free ga teesokostaadu

[meri_zindagi]

3 hours ago, Catabolite said:

Over 60-80 percent should develop resistance (recover completely). Not die from it. 

asked in other thread too... 10% or 20% or whatever, recover aina valla plasma infected patients ki ivadam option kaada ? like they do in outbreak movie where they create some medicine kind of from the host body

@Catabolite

And i got multiple reminders for blood donation. Why donation centers collecting blood and for what ?

[Catabolite]

1 minute ago, meri_zindagi said:

asked in other thread too... 10% or 20% or whatever, recover aina valla plasma infected patients ki ivadam option kaada ? like they do in outbreak movie where they create some medicine kind of from the host body

@Catabolite

It's very crude way of inducing immune response back in 1900s during the flu outreak. The problem with that is, you need to select the immune cells specific to the virus and given to the other patients, which is difficult but can be done. The major deterrent however is that you will have same problem as you would with transplant immunology. That is, basically unless the host and donor are related, the difference in haplotype of the transplanted immune cells vs host immune cells, will make someone's immune system fight the transplanted immune cells and reject those cells even before the immune cells fighting the virus. It is easier to make a vaccine than transplanting. 

[ring_master]

Just now, Catabolite said:

It's very crude way of inducing immune response back in 1900s during the flu outreak. The problem with that is, you need to select the immune cells specific to the virus and given to the other patients, which is difficult but can be done. The major deterrent however is that you will have same problem as you would with transplant immunology. That is, basically unless the host and donor are related, the difference in haplotype of the transplanted immune cells vs host immune cells, will make someone's immune system fight the transplanted immune cells and reject those cells even before the immune cells fighting the virus. It is easier to make a vaccine than transplanting. 

Interesting...seems this is not viable option than

[DummyVariable]

16 minutes ago, Catabolite said:

It's very crude way of inducing immune response back in 1900s during the flu outreak. The problem with that is, you need to select the immune cells specific to the virus and given to the other patients, which is difficult but can be done. The major deterrent however is that you will have same problem as you would with transplant immunology. That is, basically unless the host and donor are related, the difference in haplotype of the transplanted immune cells vs host immune cells, will make someone's immune system fight the transplanted immune cells and reject those cells even before the immune cells fighting the virus. It is easier to make a vaccine than transplanting. 

 

A worker at a testing center for COVID-19 at Riverside Medical Group in Secaucus, N.J., on March 18. Eduardo Munoz / Reuters

 

March 20, 2020, 5:28 PM EDT

By Mike Hixenbaugh

Dr. Arturo Casadevall was working from home in Baltimore on Thursday when his phone started to buzz with messages from colleagues. The commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration had just announced during a White House press briefing that the agency was investigating the possibility of using blood plasma donated by recovered coronavirus patients as a promising short-term treatment for the virus.

“There’s a cross-agency effort about something called convalescent plasma,” FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn said during the nationally televised briefing. “This is a pretty exciting area. And again, this is something that we have given assistance to other countries with as this crisis has developed, so FDA has been working for some time on this.”

 

Casadevall, an infectious disease expert at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, was surprised but pleased to hear of the agency’s interest. For weeks, he has led an ad hoc team of researchers from across the country who are working to establish a network of hospitals and blood banks that can begin collecting blood serum or plasma from coronavirus survivors, with the hopes of using it to treat critically ill patients and boost the immune systems of hospital workers.

 

 

Hospitals facing critical supply shortage and flood of patients

 

 

The method — essentially harvesting virus-fighting antibodies from the blood of previously infected patients — dates back more than a century, but has not been used widely in the United States in decades. The treatment was associated with milder symptoms and shorter hospital stays for some patients during the 2002 SARS outbreak, and initial reports from China suggest convalescent plasma might also be effective in dulling the effects of COVID-19, the disease caused by the new coronavirus, though Hahn cautioned that more testing was needed.

Patients tend to make large numbers of antibodies against an infecting pathogen, and these antibodies often circulate in the blood of survivors for months or years afterward. By collecting and transfusing a survivor’s serum or plasma — the liquid portion of blood left once cells and platelets have been removed — doctors could potentially boost an ailing patient's immune response, Casadevall said.

Full coverage of the coronavirus outbreak

The treatment is not without risks. There is danger in giving a patient the wrong type of blood or inadvertently transmitting other pathogens in a transfusion, but safety advancements over the past two decades have made adverse outcomes rare. Blood banks would also need to devise tests to detect whether donors have antibodies in their blood that kill the coronavirus, Casadevall said.

Doctors from nearly two dozen hospitals have joined the Johns Hopkins-led effort, he said, including researchers at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, the Stanford University Medical Center in California and the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York.

[Catabolite]

15 minutes ago, DummyVariable said:

 

A worker at a testing center for COVID-19 at Riverside Medical Group in Secaucus, N.J., on March 18. Eduardo Munoz / Reuters

 

March 20, 2020, 5:28 PM EDT

By Mike Hixenbaugh

Dr. Arturo Casadevall was working from home in Baltimore on Thursday when his phone started to buzz with messages from colleagues. The commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration had just announced during a White House press briefing that the agency was investigating the possibility of using blood plasma donated by recovered coronavirus patients as a promising short-term treatment for the virus.

“There’s a cross-agency effort about something called convalescent plasma,” FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn said during the nationally televised briefing. “This is a pretty exciting area. And again, this is something that we have given assistance to other countries with as this crisis has developed, so FDA has been working for some time on this.”

 

Casadevall, an infectious disease expert at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, was surprised but pleased to hear of the agency’s interest. For weeks, he has led an ad hoc team of researchers from across the country who are working to establish a network of hospitals and blood banks that can begin collecting blood serum or plasma from coronavirus survivors, with the hopes of using it to treat critically ill patients and boost the immune systems of hospital workers.

 

 

Hospitals facing critical supply shortage and flood of patients

 

 

The method — essentially harvesting virus-fighting antibodies from the blood of previously infected patients — dates back more than a century, but has not been used widely in the United States in decades. The treatment was associated with milder symptoms and shorter hospital stays for some patients during the 2002 SARS outbreak, and initial reports from China suggest convalescent plasma might also be effective in dulling the effects of COVID-19, the disease caused by the new coronavirus, though Hahn cautioned that more testing was needed.

Patients tend to make large numbers of antibodies against an infecting pathogen, and these antibodies often circulate in the blood of survivors for months or years afterward. By collecting and transfusing a survivor’s serum or plasma — the liquid portion of blood left once cells and platelets have been removed — doctors could potentially boost an ailing patient's immune response, Casadevall said.

Full coverage of the coronavirus outbreak

The treatment is not without risks. There is danger in giving a patient the wrong type of blood or inadvertently transmitting other pathogens in a transfusion, but safety advancements over the past two decades have made adverse outcomes rare. Blood banks would also need to devise tests to detect whether donors have antibodies in their blood that kill the coronavirus, Casadevall said.

Doctors from nearly two dozen hospitals have joined the Johns Hopkins-led effort, he said, including researchers at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, the Stanford University Medical Center in California and the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York.

Ah they're isolating antibodies not T cells. I don't know much about humoral immunity, but I want to say it's not as good as cellular immunity. Besides, isolating antibodies specific to the virus is not easy. It's easier to just use a pig or mouse infected with the virus, get antibodies and humanize the Fc region. They can try, maybe it will work depending on how much of humoral immunity there is specific to the virus (I am curious if they're just going to be giving patients IL2 or something).

[dasari4kntr]

4 hours ago, Arey_Neekundhi said:

Pusa guchinatlu cheppaala janaalaki ?? Aa maathram burra ledha ardham chesukotaniki ?? 
 

minimum sense anedhi kuda lekunda chesthuntaaru- entha sepu cheppina waste. 
 

 

Free ga oka 5 mins appreciate cheyamantene adhedho thappudu pani chesthunnatlu mana DB lo ne sense lekunda comedy chesinaaru - inka money donation ante picha comedy  !! 

ee kinda video choodu...vaadiki kaneesam hand sanitizer tho emi chestaaro kooda teliyadhu..

you are saying no need to explain flatten the curve, social distancing...they should know automatically ...