Knehrke
5 year old buck +
Lots of questions. I will do my best. Yes, this virus evolved naturally. IMHO, there is no question. I am a genetic engineer, and there would be fingerprints if it were "manufactured" in a lab. That doesn't mean that it didn't escape containment from a lab studying it in China. However, let me be clear = I have seen no evidence of that. I remain open minded to reasonable possibilities and will evaluate new evidence as it emerges. Without evidence, this is just a conspiracy theory. For the record, I think that China is out to win and will use every trick in their arsenal to do so. I am not a big fan. And yet I will withhold judgment pending facts.
Lock down until there's a vaccine? Man, I hope not. We're at least a year out, and that's with minimal validation. However, we do need to have better testing in place. Antibody testing would be fine, and should be available in the nearer term. Last I heard, the FDA had approved three tests. Believe me, you want these things to be accurate. I can't even tell you how many kinds of bad you'd see with inaccurate tests, including loss of faith from stakeholders (ie, you and me). I think that there needs to be a considered reopening that's structured to meet a particular locale's demand. It's not going to be the same everywhere. We are currently dealing at my institute with considerations of how to reengage our workforce (we are the largest employer in the county). If you only let folks who've recovered come back, then you're penalizing people who maybe did what they were asked and social distanced. Tough questions. I don't have good answers. i do know that we have to expect that this will be with us for quite some time, and we need to be prepared to deal with it. Just like the flu, there will be significant ongoing mortality. We can't keep everybody safe by keeping the economy locked down. But we can't just open the gates, either.
In the absence of well-controlled studies, anecdotal evidence is all we have, and I'm not opposed to using it, with the caveat that lots of anecdotal evidence ends up being wrong. In the case of life or death, then yeah, therapeutic drugs should be, and are, considered. If a clinical trial is demonstrating clear efficacy, then the placebo arm might be converted so that all participants benefit. It all depends on the severity of need. But it would suck if folks with underlying predispositions or contrary indications were to take a drug in order to combat a disease that they would recover from regardless. And this is not a benign drug. Neither is valinomycin, which a colleague from Northwester is touting. But in the absence of options, then by all means, do what is necessary. That's only reasonable.
Finally - let's be serious. I don't have all the answers. I don't even have most of them, and like all scientists, I can be wrong. Science is a process. The main tenant of scientific theory is that you can't prove yourself right, you can only prove yourself wrong. Which we try to do every day. We build models based on the best evidence, then we try to poke holes and tear them down. But we also recognize that you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Being wrong and admitting it allows you to refine, without having to throw everything away. Logic, evidence, open-mindedness. I could say that I don't have an agenda, but in fact I probably do - it's just not politically motivated.
Stay safe and be well. I worked out my frustration this morning on some ash trees, and the tower blind is still standing, so I call that a win.
PS. I just got notice that a friend of mine has initiated a study to look at antibody prevalence in the general population, and will also test how long post-infection immunity lasts. This is exactly what i think a bunch of posts are asking for - and we're doing it. But it takes time. To be continued...
Last edited:
Thanks to ksgobbler for telling me who I am...Really! 
