Swab tests and blood tests

Nicholas Christakis has a good Twitter thread about testing for the coronavirus here. Thanks to Steve for sending it to me. By the way, I've followed Christakis' work in the past. He's good in terms of the medical science.

However, in case people don't wish to read his thread, here are what I perceive to be the main takeaways in non-technical language:

1. Everyone has been talking about "testing". What this means is swabs. Like they'll swab the back of your throat and your nose with a Q-tip thingy, then send it off to a lab to process, and eventually send you back a result. Swabs reveal the presence of coronavirus.

2. However, if someone has had the coronavirus, but recovered, then a swab test won't reveal the presence of coronavirus inasmuch as their immune system would have more or less eliminated coronavirus.

3. Instead, we need a blood test (serology) in order to reveal someone who has had coronavirus but recovered. That's because blood tests will reveal antibodies our immune system has produced against the coronavirus. So blood tests are basically testing or looking for the presence of antibodies against the coronavirus.

(By the way, that's generally how vaccines work too. Vaccines provoke our immune system to create antibodies against a particular disease.)

4 We need to be doing both types of tests. Swab tests and blood tests.

5. If someone has recovered from the coronavirus (i.e. there are antibodies present in their blood), then they are effectively immune from the coronavirus.

6. Also, they aren't contagious.

7. They can go back to school or work, go shopping, run errands, whatever. As such, Christakis argues, it would be good for our economy and society if we can prioritize finding out who is immune to the coronavirus so we can send people back into the work force and so on.

8. What's more, as there are more immune people walking around, this will confer a degree of herd immunity on society at large. The immune will be like a buffer to keep others from getting infected with coronavirus.

(Again, this is the same with vaccination in general. For example, if some people aren't vaccinated against the measles, but if everyone else is vaccinated against the measles, then the greater "herd" will protect the "weaker" ones in the herd who aren't immune from the measles and prevent the "weaker" ones from getting the measles. That's because the measles can't spread through the entire population unchecked if enough people are vaccinated and immune to the measles. The measles can't cut through a community if it hits a wall of immune people.)

9. When we have tested a representative sample of people, we will be able to have more accurate statistics. Christakis states we might find the fatality rate is "much lower than we have been fearing".

Anti-vaxxers in a pandemic

Somewhat surprisingly, perhaps, there are still many vocal anti-vaccination activists in the midst of a pandemic. So I want to say a few things about anti-vaxxers:

1. I've interacted with several staunch anti-vaccination activists. I've even tried to repeatedly reason with them but to no avail.

2. Del Bigtree is a staunch anti-vaccination activist. In fact, he's one of the anti-vaxx movement's leading voices. However, Del Bigtree has zero medical background or expertise. He's basically a media personality.

3. For a corrective, I'd recommend people watch the first half (though the whole thing is informative) of this interview with Peter Hotez on Joe Rogan (and in my opinion Rogan was quite pushy with Hotez but Hotez weathered it well):

Hotez is a physician (MD) as well as a scientist (PhD). In fact, Hotez's own daughter has autism. See his book Vaccines Did Not Cause Rachel's Autism: My Journey as a Vaccine Scientist, Pediatrician, and Autism Dad. Hotez (who obviously loves his daughter) nevertheless argues for what the title of his book says.

No doubt many anti-vaxxers will dismiss Hotez out of hand (e.g. see some of the Amazon reviews of his book), but reasonable-minded people should at least give him a fair hearing. Hotez works with infectious tropical diseases in poor communities and developing vaccines for them. Specifically the most neglected diseases and vaccines (e.g. hookworm, schistosomiasis, Chagas disease).

By the way, since anti-vaxxers make a big deal out of people being compromised by money, these vaccines haven't generated any revenue for Hotez. In fact, these vaccines have virtually no potential to generate revenue, which, in fact, is why vaccine companies refuse to develop these vaccines.

And I'm not sure about Hotez's religious views (if any), so I could be wrong, but I think he might be Catholic.

4. Unfortunately many people today are "vaccine hesitant" precisely because of how large and powerful and influential the anti-vaccination movement has become. Anti-vaccination activists have multi-million dollar organizations as well as vocal lobbyists who lobby for anti-vaccination positions in Washington, DC and elsewhere. Anti-vaccination activists are extremely rich, powerful, and influential today. They're very effectively sowing seeds of doubt about vaccines today. It's become alarming. Such as with over 20 measles outbreaks across the US in the last 5 or 6 years. Anti-vaxxers like Bigtree endanger public health.

5. Finally, I have to wonder: If the coronavirus (COVID-19) turns out to be very contagious or infectious, and if it turns out to have a high fatality rate, and millions of Americans are dropping dead (let alone others around the world), but we are able to develop a successful vaccine for it, how many anti-vaccination activists will still be consistent and argue against vaccination?

The new normal

Here's my reply to a homosexual man on Facebook:

There is enough evidence that shows it’s epigenetic.

1. There's also enough evidence that shows it's not epigenetic. The truth is the epigenetic basis for homosexual orientation is very hotly contested in the medical and scientific literature. Scientists and physicians go back and forth on it. What's more, there are pro-homosexual researchers who are skeptical about the epigenetic basis for homosexual orientation. Anyway, point being, it's far from conclusive or definitive.

2. However, suppose for the sake of argument the evidence shows there is an epigenetic basis for homosexual orientation. Nevertheless, many if not most researchers still argue epigenetics is not necessarily the fundamental let alone sole basis for homosexual orientation.

it’s basically like asking someone to give up on sex

What Christians should know about vaccines

Joe Carter wrote an article on TGC that garnered a plethora of comments and considerable debate on Facebook:

"What Christians should know about vaccines"

Just a few comments in passing:

Are You Allowing Your Child to Be Injected with Vaccines that Contain Chopped Up Aborted Baby Parts?

There is a lot of justified outrage out there of late about abortion among Christians. However, many Christian parents either do not want to know or are simply ignorant of the fact that major vaccines given to children contain aborted baby parts.

This is not a post about the question of the safety or effectiveness of vaccines. So please do not comment on that facet of the vaccine debate in the comments. It's about whether we are consistent in our ethics: Can you be a Christian and knowingly allow your child to be injected with aborted fetal tissue? 

How can you know what vaccines contain it? The following video discusses this issue.