D&D and the rising pandemic

[Kaodi]

Maybe this was addressed somewhere in the last, um, 116 pages, but I have been somewhat surprised that there has not really been an increase in PbP games since this began. Are people just looking ahead, given that these games tend to go longer than the coronavorizon, or is PbP just kinda on the way out when livechat is an option?

 

[FrogReaver]

Yah. The vaccine induces your immune system to produce antibodies. The vaccine is effective so long as you have enough antibodies to protect you from the virus.

Edit to add - This is one of the places where "detectable" and "effective" matter. A study or two have claimed they detected antibodies even decades after exposure to some flu strains. But that doesn't speak to effective immunity.

It seems to me there are 2 primary reasons we lose "immunity" to the flu virus (i'd prefer the term resistance)
1. Our antibody levels become to low to properly fight off the virus again. Time will do this. In this case we lose resistance/immunity because we don't keep it.
2. The flu virus mutates and even though we still have enough antibodies to fight the old variation the new variation is different enough that we are now able to catch it.

I've seen nothing in the articles you cited and your reasoning to believe that losing immunity to the flu in 6 months is more about #1 than #2.

 

[The Green Hermit]

Maybe this was addressed somewhere in the last, um, 116 pages, but I have been somewhat surprised that there has not really been an increase in PbP games since this began. Are people just looking ahead, given that these games tend to go longer than the coronavorizon, or is PbP just kinda on the way out when livechat is an option?

The one PbP I was looking at didn't seem like it was well organized. Since I have never played in that format before, I needed it to be run by somebody that was experienced.

 

[FrogReaver]

Does a positive antibody test generally mean the infection is over and done with? Or does it simply indicate exposure, so any given positive result might either asymptomatic/recovered or a future illness or death?

My understanding is exposure. Though you would see number of traditional tested cases be going up if the number of people with it were increasing so I think we already have sufficient evidence to believe the antibody tests mostly represent asymptomatic/recovered.

However, if this possibility wasn't accounted for in the antibody tested subpopulation then I'm not sure how meaningful the results would be. It probably wouldn't take many people with it that were presymptomatic in that study to greatly lower the estimated number of people that have had it.

 

[FrogReaver]

If Fox News and The New York Times agree, then there's probably not anything wrong in the Fox article. But in general, relying on one news source leaves you with no error checking.

Of course. That's why I view all - even the ones that don't often share my opinions.

 

[tomBitonti]

Is there anything wrong in the Fox News article?

The data in the Fox article matches the NY Times article.

There are faults, though, in that the article states a conclusion which cannot be reached from the data. One generally wouldn't state in such strong language an uncertain conclusion. In this case, the text "have had" is too definite, especially since the text is in the main clause of the title, and "suggest" is in a secondary clause.

A key observation which must be emphasized is that the sample population is biased (in a statistical sense): The sample is of persons who are out and about, and one quickly finds an alternate hypothesis to the suggested state percentage, which is that the sample rate overcounts the proportion of positive results because the sample is of a more highly exposed subset of the population. For example, a household might have just one person who is out and about, while the rest of the household more strictly follows distancing guidelines.

That is just one alternate hypothesis: Testing must be done uniformly across a the state population to really know.

Be Safe, Be Well,
Tom Bitonti

 

[FrogReaver]

Depends on what aspect of the issues you're considering. F'rex, if you are hoping for long-term immunity, yes, more people having it already is good.

Not just for long term immunity. The higher the number of people with it - the lower the mortality rate. If the mortality rate is low enough we no longer have to worry nearly as much about this as much more people can get it and spread it around without causing massive death and overburdening our hospitals.

If you aren't banking on that, the more people that have it now, the longer it will take to reduce numbers to a point where normalcy can start returning.

I think the more people that already have it the more likely we get to and are able to maintain normalcy. I say that due to these possibilities.

1. Possibility of Long term Immunity (6 months+) in more people
2. Possibility of Shorter term Immunity (Less than 6 months) in more people
3. Possibility of much lower than previously believed mortality rate (due to vastly more people already having it)

All of these things would be positive possibilities for this to end soon.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Does a positive antibody test generally mean the infection is over and done with? Or does it simply indicate exposure, so any given positive result might either asymptomatic/recovered or a future illness or death?

We don’t know for sure yet.

There have been reports of people who were declared recovered who have subsequently tested positive again. There’s a half-dozen or more reasons why this could be, and they’re still trying to sort out the real reason or reasons.

 

[Nagol]

It seems to me there are 2 primary reasons we lose "immunity" to the flu virus (i'd prefer the term resistance)
1. Our antibody levels become to low to properly fight off the virus again. Time will do this. In this case we lose resistance/immunity because we don't keep it.
2. The flu virus mutates and even though we still have enough antibodies to fight the old variation the new variation is different enough that we are now able to catch it.

I've seen nothing in the articles you cited and your reasoning to believe that losing immunity to the flu in 6 months is more about #1 than #2.

They're testing against the same strains. No mutation.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Products I have found you should be careful using when wearing masks:

1) breath mints

2) strongly scented mustache/beard/skin products

Both can get you a little light headed if you use them too soon before donning your kit.