Banjo Hangout Logo
Banjo Hangout Logo

Premier Sponsors

420
Banjo Lovers Online


Nov 24, 2020 - 12:02:56 PM
likes this
73767 posts since 5/9/2007

I've heard from time to time that type O blood has a better chance at surviving Covid-19.
Lucky me.

Nov 24, 2020 - 12:20:40 PM
likes this

AGACNP

USA

144 posts since 10/12/2011

Same here Steve, but it seems the data is inconsistent in regard to potential ‘protective’ nature of blood type:

hms.harvard.edu/news/covid-19-blood-type

Nov 24, 2020 - 10:25:33 PM
Players Union Member

Brian T

Canada

17550 posts since 6/5/2008

Harvard is saying that AB+ produces more false positives. Read it again.
You are far better off to use supplements with Vitamin D and the micronutrient mineral, Selenium.
The resveratrol in red wine is another healthy supplement.
But that's not CNN or FOX, only the real science.

Nov 25, 2020 - 1:51:26 AM
likes this

Bill Rogers (Moderator)

USA

24240 posts since 6/25/2005

Time for some Cabernet.

Nov 25, 2020 - 2:03:32 AM
Players Union Member

Nels

USA

5999 posts since 12/10/2012

or broccoli...

Nov 25, 2020 - 2:13:28 AM

AGACNP

USA

144 posts since 10/12/2011

quote:
Originally posted by Brian T

Harvard is saying that AB+ produces more false positives. Read it again.
You are far better off to use supplements with Vitamin D and the micronutrient mineral, Selenium.
The resveratrol in red wine is another healthy supplement.
But that's not CNN or FOX, only the real science.


The actual study is here:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7354354/

Conclusions:

"Blood type is not associated with risk of progression to severe disease requiring intubation or causing death, nor is it associated with higher peak levels of inflammatory markers. Patients with blood types B and AB who received a test were more likely to test positive as were those who are Rh+ positive, and blood type O was less likely to test positive."

I read studies every day. From this study (small as it is),  I infer that in SYMPTOMATIC patients, blood type has nothing to do with survivability. According to these results, those with type O are simply less likely to test positive.

Edited by - AGACNP on 11/25/2020 02:18:37

Nov 25, 2020 - 3:43:38 AM

382 posts since 9/6/2019

quote:
Originally posted by AGACNP
quote:
Originally posted by Brian T

Harvard is saying that AB+ produces more false positives. Read it again.
You are far better off to use supplements with Vitamin D and the micronutrient mineral, Selenium.
The resveratrol in red wine is another healthy supplement.
But that's not CNN or FOX, only the real science.


The actual study is here:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7354354/

Conclusions:

"Blood type is not associated with risk of progression to severe disease requiring intubation or causing death, nor is it associated with higher peak levels of inflammatory markers. Patients with blood types B and AB who received a test were more likely to test positive as were those who are Rh+ positive, and blood type O was less likely to test positive."

I read studies every day. From this study (small as it is),  I infer that in SYMPTOMATIC patients, blood type has nothing to do with survivability. According to these results, those with type O are simply less likely to test positive.


But if they aren't testing positive at the same rates and also are also underrepresented in symptomatic cases, doesn't that validate, at least partially, the primary topic: That people with Type O blood don't appear to be as susceptible to the virus? Since other studies have found that 50% or more of the infections are asymptomatic, only looking at symptomatic cases doesn't seem to paint an accurate picture. Also, seeing as Type O blood is the most common blood type, according to the American Red Cross, it stands to reason that it should represent the majority of cases. To blow it off as "They are simply less likely to test positive" doesn't really fit the facts surrounding the topic.

Nov 25, 2020 - 4:12:33 AM

AGACNP

USA

144 posts since 10/12/2011

quote:
Originally posted by Banjonewguy
quote:
Originally posted by AGACNP
quote:
Originally posted by Brian T

Harvard is saying that AB+ produces more false positives. Read it again.
You are far better off to use supplements with Vitamin D and the micronutrient mineral, Selenium.
The resveratrol in red wine is another healthy supplement.
But that's not CNN or FOX, only the real science.


The actual study is here:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7354354/

Conclusions:

"Blood type is not associated with risk of progression to severe disease requiring intubation or causing death, nor is it associated with higher peak levels of inflammatory markers. Patients with blood types B and AB who received a test were more likely to test positive as were those who are Rh+ positive, and blood type O was less likely to test positive."

I read studies every day. From this study (small as it is),  I infer that in SYMPTOMATIC patients, blood type has nothing to do with survivability. According to these results, those with type O are simply less likely to test positive.


But if they aren't testing positive at the same rates and also are also underrepresented in symptomatic cases, doesn't that validate, at least partially, the primary topic: That people with Type O blood don't appear to be as susceptible to the virus? Since other studies have found that 50% or more of the infections are asymptomatic, only looking at symptomatic cases doesn't seem to paint an accurate picture. Also, seeing as Type O blood is the most common blood type, according to the American Red Cross, it stands to reason that it should represent the majority of cases. To blow it off as "They are simply less likely to test positive" doesn't really fit the facts surrounding the topic.


Brian said "Harvard is saying that AB+ produces more false positives." The study doesn't say that at all.

In the study conclusions, it read: "...those with blood type O were less likely to test positive." Their words, not mine.

Perhaps my usage of the word "simply" is misplaced. The pathophysiology of this virus is anything but simple.

This study, as do most, has limitations. As always "more study is needed."

Nov 25, 2020 - 4:25:39 AM
likes this

382 posts since 9/6/2019

I agree. But the entire premise of this thread is that those with Type O blood are less susceptible to the virus. This study actually lends credibility to that statement. I never doubted their words, I questioned your inferrence based on symptomatic cases. I was also just adding some context.

If we really want to figure out who is or is not getting the virus, we need a robust antigen testing program. Otherwise we will never know how many asymptomatic cases there have been.

Nov 25, 2020 - 4:42:48 AM

6147 posts since 9/5/2006

i hope its right ,, i am O negative.. red cross loves me,, i always give 2 units when i go.

Nov 25, 2020 - 4:48:26 AM

AGACNP

USA

144 posts since 10/12/2011

I read this particular study as: all who were tested were symptomatic, and the O types tended to test negative in that setting.

That, to me, says there's a lot of false negatives out there. I've not kept up with it in the past few weeks, but in our hospital we found (April, May, June) an approximate 30-40% false negative testing in symptomatic patients on ventilators in those 'first swabbed.' Our ID guys persisted with reswabbing pts they suspected were infected with subsequent positive testing. There was no news r/t blood type though.

Edited by - AGACNP on 11/25/2020 04:56:00

Nov 25, 2020 - 5:01:42 AM

382 posts since 9/6/2019

quote:
Originally posted by 1935tb-11

i hope its right ,, i am O negative.. red cross loves me,, i always give 2 units when i go.


I used to give blood all the time, because I am O+, but after a stint of living in the UK in the mid 90's they won't touch me with a 10 foot pole.

Nov 25, 2020 - 5:24:25 AM

6147 posts since 9/5/2006

quote:
Originally posted by Banjonewguy
quote:
Originally posted by 1935tb-11

i hope its right ,, i am O negative.. red cross loves me,, i always give 2 units when i go.


I used to give blood all the time, because I am O+, but after a stint of living in the UK in the mid 90's they won't touch me with a 10 foot pole.


wonder why ???

Nov 25, 2020 - 5:49:26 AM

382 posts since 9/6/2019

That's when BSE was huge over there. Because I lived there for two years and admitted that I ate a load of beef, they don't want my blood any more. I guess that is still the rule because they haven't called me to donate. I figured if I ever came off the bad boy list they would be the first to let me know.

Nov 25, 2020 - 5:59:52 AM

547 posts since 10/9/2017

quote:
Originally posted by Banjonewguy
quote:
Originally posted by 1935tb-11

i hope its right ,, i am O negative.. red cross loves me,, i always give 2 units when i go.


I used to give blood all the time, because I am O+, but after a stint of living in the UK in the mid 90's they won't touch me with a 10 foot pole.


Yep.

Nov 25, 2020 - 6:19:44 AM

547 posts since 10/9/2017

quote:
Originally posted by Remsleep
quote:
Originally posted by Banjonewguy
quote:
Originally posted by 1935tb-11

i hope its right ,, i am O negative.. red cross loves me,, i always give 2 units when i go.


I used to give blood all the time, because I am O+, but after a stint of living in the UK in the mid 90's they won't touch me with a 10 foot pole.


Yep.


NV-CJD has resulted in fewer than 200 deaths to date, but we can't give blood because reasons.

Nov 26, 2020 - 8:12:19 PM

mander

USA

4486 posts since 10/7/2007

quote:
Originally posted by AGACNP
quote:
Originally posted by Brian T

Harvard is saying that AB+ produces more false positives. Read it again.
You are far better off to use supplements with Vitamin D and the micronutrient mineral, Selenium.
The resveratrol in red wine is another healthy supplement.
But that's not CNN or FOX, only the real science.


The actual study is here:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7354354/

Conclusions:

"Blood type is not associated with risk of progression to severe disease requiring intubation or causing death, nor is it associated with higher peak levels of inflammatory markers. Patients with blood types B and AB who received a test were more likely to test positive as were those who are Rh+ positive, and blood type O was less likely to test positive."

I read studies every day. From this study (small as it is),  I infer that in SYMPTOMATIC patients, blood type has nothing to do with survivability. According to these results, those with type O are simply less likely to test positive.


So... do those studies imply that  O neg types are more likely to falsely test negative? Or that O neg is more likely to correctly test negative? Is O neg less receptive to the virius or is the virius better equipped to hid within O neg blood? Inquiring O negs want to know! :-)

Studies rarely say what one might think they say.

Nov 27, 2020 - 5:16 AM

6147 posts since 9/5/2006

according to what i have read,, type O was slightly less susceptible to get the virus
then type A,, and if they did it was not as severe as type A.   type AB was the least type to contract it.

Edited by - 1935tb-11 on 11/27/2020 05:16:54

Hangout Network Help

View All Topics  |  View Categories

0.25