Coronavirus: How dangerous a threat?

Page 114 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Chris I am sorry that my post didn't make clear medically ,legally what I was saying.
I am saying that when the chief executive of the executive branch of the US government suggests drinking soap or says putting a light bulb inside your body as a medical treatment for preventing or treating Covid-19 virus that is wrong.
like info -commercials on television,there needs to be a conspicuous,conscious legal release stated that the information is not medical advice.
advising people to take medication for off label use is prohibited in most states for licensed physicians..giving medical advice as a non licensed doctor is illegal in many states..
medically the US is distinguishing itself in a very negative way,other health crisis issues like gun deaths and opioid addiction and overdose,deaths,are now joined by Covid-19..all have proven medical intervention and medical solutions, but Americans are first compelled to argue of freedom,liberty and the constitution before getting to the task at hand. Unlike other more historically typical American problems,the pandemic requires an international cooperation response that so far the US is unwilling to participate in.
The oscillating that we are observing in the US is certainly not simple, but as we pulse from on to off and on and off again..the part that is simple is medical(scientific) first..everything else later..one of those rare occasions when chewing gum and walking at the same time are undesirable.
America needs to put medicine and science first.
The only question is will the damage be so great that it's irreparable..
What are we doing, what are we leaving for our kids?
Does everyone need to have a house fire before deciding on a smoke detector?
Need a dead family member to quit smoking or wear seat belts?
Why are Americans sticking out? What makes us different in the Covid crisis?
We better figure it out
Guzzling disinfectant or sticking a grow light inside yourself is not a solution
 
If 500 kids are put together in a school not only does that expose them to 499 other kids, it exposes them to siblings (at other schools), parents, extended family. With the MCJCLDS families here that could easily equal 10x. So just for fun math at some schools that could be 2,500+1000=3500 exposures. That's probably a few more than they get in the back yard neighborhood play group. That obviously doesn't count each exposure from parent/extended family work places. It also doesn't count the adults who work in the school and have kids at other schools and spouses at other jobs. That's the main reason why schools are frequently referred to as petri dishes.

Why would we assume that C19 won't spread in schools? Every (most) other respiratory disease does.

I'm going to stand by my assertion that risking getting kids really sick (lasting heart/lung issues, neurological issues...) is too big of a risk especially when death is also on the risk sheet. I would rather look back at delayed learning, and emotional stress than deaths.
The Washington Post article Chris linked to, actually contains a lot of information. There is a lot of data available from outside the US, and much of the data points to very low transmission in children < 10-12, and also between children and adults, so primary schools and kindergartens should be relatively safe. I also want to add that children don't all mix - in Belgium, the 'bubbles' are the classes, typically around 20 children per class.

As I have said before: how many children die or get injured on their way to school or back (by traffic)? The number here in Belgium is far, far bigger than what covid-19 has caused (in fact, I think only 1 person younger than 18 has died here from corona). Also, I see no single rationale for opening up places of leisure, but not opening schools. Opening schools in the middle of a spike in infections doesn't seem prudent, but when reopening things, schools should be among the first, not among the last.
 
How do you propose to protect people over 60 (many of whom work, btw), and people with pre-existing conditions (which > 40% of adults have in the U.S., btw), when in the U.S. we have prima facie evidence that letting the rest get on with their work and lives means spiking of cases, putting the elderly at major risk unless they stay locked down forever? How is it safe for anyone in the high risk groups to leave their homes when the virus is spreading rapidly in their communities?

If your plan is just to put us old folks under house arrest for the rest of our lives, maybe allowed to take our chances at the grocery store at 5 AM, at least say so honestly.

Here's a good article on the latest views on how the virus is transmitted:

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/is-covid-19-transmitted-by-airborne-aerosols/?fbclid=IwAR2C_ZoUnaIOYXQinL54iFMJAUm7CrkZIR9hI2Mw9Ncj35U7B6jkvjMbxbc

Have to add this: I was debating someone on another forum, who posted a chart from the Health and Human Services of Texas. The idea was to show that flu was much worse than C19. One thing that didn't make sense to me was the number of flu deaths reported for the state. Now it turns out the chart was fake, HHS has denied that it put it out.
That is not my plan nor what I was implying. You protect them just as we protected them during lockdown. Wear masks, surgical gloves and so on when going shopping. Stay at home and away from crowds. But everyone else gets on with their life but with sensible restrictions especially social distancing. These restrictions and guidelines are already in place and mostly they worked even when restrictions were eased.

All of us have been in lockdown already - not just those over 60. Even post easing businesses and shops are regulated to be C-19 compliant. My parents who are 79 and 82 have stayed inside since March. They don't like it but are used to it. But how many in the US didn't take the virus seriously and how much did this attitude contribute to the spike?

All I am saying is there is a trade-off between the economy and C19. These economic costs are yet to be fully realized we can't screw the economy indefinitely. I think it is possible to keep people adequately separated to slow transmission and still get on with life, work and business.
 
Reactions: Nomad
My contention is that we don't have this data because kids have been out of school since mid/late March. IMO it isn't worth the risk to find out how many of them end up with lasting illness or death.

Plus, you are comparing Australia numbers to USA numbers. Just Idaho (population 1.8 mil) alone has more cases than Australia (25 mil) and the same number of deaths. If I lived there I might have a different view.
I understand that. But just looking at the overall stats across all age groups I doubt if serious C-19 complications would be anything other than extremely rare. Linked are Australia's official stats by state and age group. Victoria is where it got out of hand.

https://www.health.gov.au/news/health-alerts/novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov-health-alert/coronavirus-covid-19-current-situation-and-case-numbers
 
Plenty of discussion about schools reopening and the threat of infections - There is enough data to suggest children don't readily transmit COVID19 as much as adults - In terms of transmission, children spreading the virus within school grounds is not dangerous, it's when they are out of school socialising with their friends - They follow strict rules at school, but on the way home from school it can be a free-for-all.
 
Last edited:
The point is we didn't shut down schools for H1N1. So I'll ask you, why not? What's different now?
The short answer is that the CDC guidelines are different. You could take a cruise to Mexico from SoCal in 2009. Sporting events were mostly unaltered. I remember Landon Donovan caught Swine Flu after a World Cup qualifier in Mexico. I remember having to put Purel on my hands to shake hands with the Dean during my graduation, but nobody wore masks at work or grocery stores. Drastic times require drastic measures. I don't think there was any alternative to closing schools in March or April given the conditions on the ground. The debate is what should be done in August/ Sept.

I think there is a broad consensus here that the optimal situation for kids and parents would be 5 days of in person class. But, I imagine that most would also agree that outside of some spots in Europe, NZ, Aus, etc, that this is not really feasible. Maybe even a couple spots in the USA could do it in theory. But by the same token, there are certain spots where remote learning is a necessity given the size of the local outbreaks. In the USA, you can't make the comparison between remote and full time in person the central point of your argument because the CDC guidelines prevents schools being open 5 days for in person learning. So, the real question becomes how much better is the hybrid model (2 days a week in person) than remote learning. Is that difference worth the risk to teachers and staff. I personally think the hybrid model is the most sustainable way to move forward for k-8. High schools and colleges should be remote IMO for at least the fall semester. The white collar folks are still working from home even though it is not optimal. From the teachers' perspective, you can understand why they might want to get the same degree of consideration.

I don't know if anybody has seen the stories, but there has been a few sizable outbreaks at sleep-away camps involving kids and staff. Pair that with the example of Israel, and it is almost guaranteed that certain kids can be spreaders. It is probably a relative rarity, so the question is how rare and what role does this play in school opening decisions.
Have to add this: I was debating someone on another forum, who posted a chart from the Health and Human Services of Texas. The idea was to show that flu was much worse than C19. One thing that didn't make sense to me was the number of flu deaths reported for the state. Now it turns out the chart was fake, HHS has denied that it put it out.
The numbers were probably put on a meme and shared by millions. It is no wonder how we have gotten to this point. So often the debate is treating Flu and CoV as binary options. I don't think enough people have gotten their heads around the fact that this fall/ winter we are going to get them both whether we like it or not. The worst case scenarios really are much, much worse than people are imagining. We narrowly averted this earlier this year as influenza was waning as COVID-19 was rising.
 
Reactions: jmdirt
"Schools—not restaurants or gyms—turned out to be [Israel's] worst mega-infectors.”

Maybe reopening schools isn't safe or dangerous per se, and it depends on how exactly it is done in practice. Having 20 kids per class is not the same as having +30, as is often the case in Spain. The general situation of the pandemic in each country will also be a factor. Something to keep in mind.
I shared that quote form Israel, but it got selectively chopped out of replies. :mask:
 
Plenty of discussion about schools reopening and the threat of infections - There is enough data to suggest children don't reading transmit COVID19 as much as adults - In terms of transmission, children spreading the virus within school grounds is not dangerous, it's when they are out of school socialising with their friends - They follow strict rules at school, but on the way home from school can be a free-for-all.
Please share the data...
 
Please share the data...
Hey - You are the one who is posting about about children to children transmission in schools - There is so much online data you can google covering this subject - Focus on the last two sentences in my post - The risk is not within school grounds as strong protocols will be developed BUT rather what happens when children leave school and socialise with their friends/class mates - As has been pointed out, schools can adopt flexible on-site modes of learning, including AM and PM classes, classes every second day which allows for social distancing - I'll also add this has the aim of having as few as possible students at schools at lunchtime which can be a breeding ground for infection.
 
Hey - You are the one who is posting about about children to children transmission in schools - There is so much online data you can google covering this subject - Focus on the last two sentences in my post - The risk is not within school grounds as strong protocols will be developed BUT rather what happens when children leave school and socialise with their friends/class mates - As has been pointed out, schools can adopt flexible on-site modes of learning, including AM and PM classes, classes every second day which allows for social distancing - I'll also add this has the aim of having as few as possible students at schools at lunchtime which can be a breeding ground for infection.
So you don't have data, just rhetoric?

EDIT: I am not posting about child to child transmission in school, because schools have bee closed.
 
Last edited:
I had heard about the stylists who did not transmit the virus to the people they saw at work while masked. But I did not know that she infected her family, illustrating that she was quite contagious.

View: https://twitter.com/AbraarKaran/status/1283090093838790656
One of the things in the Tweet thread that was 'off' for me was the auto assumption that she gave C19 to her husband, when maybe he gave it to her, or both got it from someone else.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: yaco
The numbers were probably put on a meme and shared by millions. It is no wonder how we have gotten to this point. So often the debate is treating Flu and CoV as binary options. I don't think enough people have gotten their heads around the fact that this fall/ winter we are going to get them both whether we like it or not. The worst case scenarios really are much, much worse than people are imagining. We narrowly averted this earlier this year as influenza was waning as COVID-19 was rising.
In Australia influenza cases so far in our winter is way down compared to the usual. This is because of the social distancing and other restrictions brought in to counter C-19.
 
An update on that Texas HHS table. It was definitely not official, but the flu deaths listed corresponded to deaths from flu + pneumonia. I hadn't realized this before, but the CDC and other disease tracking organizations lump deaths from flu and pneumonia together in some reports. Of course, many people die from pneumonia without having the flu. i found a study that concluded that about 50 times as many pneumonia deaths are reported as flu deaths. The same study showed that the correlation between the two was very strong, though, suggesting to the authors that some deaths attributed to pneumonia may actually also have been from the flu.

In any case, this is why the deaths tend to be lumped together. Before I realized this, i was puzzled at some numbers. E.g., Japan in 2018-19 reported about 3400 excess deaths attributed to flu, but 140,000 deaths to flu + pneumonia. Need to know which record one is referring to.

Wrt kids as transmitters, most of the studies I've seen do show kids transmitting the virus less often than older people, BUT most of those studies report total number of contacts infected. Since kids themselves are less likely to be infected (remember, they've been out of school all this time), and in any case, are tested less often, there are far fewer confirmed cases of kids to match with possible contacts, as compared to the huge number of adults. Second, kids--again, when not in school--tend to have fewer contacts than adults. When these two factors are taken into account, a lot of the differences between kids and adults disappear. I'm not saying kids might not be less contagious--there is evidence they carry lower viral loads, and to the extent that the virus is airborne, they exhale air less strongly than adults--but I don't think the issue is settled yet.

Speaking of airborne transmission. Most discussions of this I think have missed a very important study that measured virus levels in throat. I think I mentioned this study upthread in connection with the evidence that people don't remain infectious very long. These data allow one to determine the concentration of virus in saliva, from which you can calculate the probability that even a single virus particle will be present in aerosols or droplets. It turns out that the probability is very low until one gets to very large droplets. E.g., the probability of a single viral copy being present in a 50 um droplet was calculated to be about 37% . For a 10 um droplet (still large enough that it settles out of the air very quickly), it's down to 0.1%.

This was for the average peak viral concentration in saliva, though the maximum reported in one subject was about ten times higher. This could, of course, be one explanation for super-spreading events. Some infected people may produce droplets or aerosol particles with a lot more virus than other people. Even more intriguing, some studies have distinguished between high particle producers, HPP, and low particle producers, LPP, with the former exhaling thousands of particles per liter of air, while the latter exhale less than a few hundred. This could also contribute to some people being more contagious than other. I'd guess this is related to how dry someone's mouth is, though.

However, it's even more complicated than this, because after droplets are exhaled from a person, they very quickly become dehydrated (in a tenth of a second or so). This results in massive shrinking of size. So a 50 um particle might shrink to 10 um, less than 1/100th the volume, and at this point it's mostly salt, protein and maybe some virus. These dehydrated particles are what would actually be spread from one person to another.

Studies that have also measured the number of particles of various sizes exhaled by subjects during normal breathing, speaking, or coughing. These studies generally report far greater numbers of these particles than viral copies, which is consistent with the saliva data that indicate most particles contain few if any viral copies (This, by the way, is very strong evidence against the Rancourt link posted upthread, claiming that masks don't work, because a single droplet or aerosol particle contains an infectious amount of virus).
 
In Australia influenza cases so far in our winter is way down compared to the usual. This is because of the social distancing and other restrictions brought in to counter C-19.
It seems the flu season outside Australia has been a mild one this year. Australian authorities predicted this a few months ago but of course the social distancing and working from home has made the flu season even less problematic. Just as well especially in Victoria...........40 aged care homes are currently showing infections in Victoria. One person seems to have infected 30 others after visiting Victoria and crossing back into NSW before the border closed.
 
That is true about flu and pneumonia stats. People throw out the estimates of the yearly influenza mortality when comparing it to COVID-19. But the number of people who die with a confirmed positive test for flu is a lot less than that number. That is why the estimate has large confidence intervals. Also, quite a few die from secondary bacterial infections like strep pneumo , so cause of death can be fuzzy.
One of the things in the Tweet thread that was 'off' for me was the auto assumption that she gave C19 to her husband, when maybe he gave it to her, or both got it from someone else.
It wasn't specified in the article, but it seems like it was a matter of timing. They became sick afterwards. Not ironclad but suggestive.
 
Reactions: jmdirt
An update on that Texas HHS table. It was definitely not official, but the flu deaths listed corresponded to deaths from flu + pneumonia. I hadn't realized this before, but the CDC and other disease tracking organizations lump deaths from flu and pneumonia together in some reports. Of course, many people die from pneumonia without having the flu. i found a study that concluded that about 50 times as many pneumonia deaths are reported as flu deaths. The same study showed that the correlation between the two was very strong, though, suggesting to the authors that some deaths attributed to pneumonia may actually also have been from the flu.

In any case, this is why the deaths tend to be lumped together. Before I realized this, i was puzzled at some numbers. E.g., Japan in 2018-19 reported about 3400 excess deaths attributed to flu, but 140,000 deaths to flu + pneumonia. Need to know which record one is referring to.

Wrt kids as transmitters, most of the studies I've seen do show kids transmitting the virus less often than older people, BUT most of those studies report total number of contacts infected. Since kids themselves are less likely to be infected (remember, they've been out of school all this time), and in any case, are tested less often, there are far fewer confirmed cases of kids to match with possible contacts, as compared to the huge number of adults. Second, kids--again, when not in school--tend to have fewer contacts than adults. When these two factors are taken into account, a lot of the differences between kids and adults disappear. I'm not saying kids might not be less contagious--there is evidence they carry lower viral loads, and to the extent that the virus is airborne, they exhale air less strongly than adults--but I don't think the issue is settled yet.

Speaking of airborne transmission. Most discussions of this I think have missed a very important study that measured virus levels in throat. I think I mentioned this study upthread in connection with the evidence that people don't remain infectious very long. These data allow one to determine the concentration of virus in saliva, from which you can calculate the probability that even a single virus particle will be present in aerosols or droplets. It turns out that the probability is very low until one gets to very large droplets. E.g., the probability of a single viral copy being present in a 50 um droplet was calculated to be about 37% . For a 10 um droplet (still large enough that it settles out of the air very quickly), it's down to 0.1%.

This was for the average peak viral concentration in saliva, though the maximum reported in one subject was about ten times higher. This could, of course, be one explanation for super-spreading events. Some infected people may produce droplets or aerosol particles with a lot more virus than other people. Even more intriguing, some studies have distinguished between high particle producers, HPP, and low particle producers, LPP, with the former exhaling thousands of particles per liter of air, while the latter exhale less than a few hundred. This could also contribute to some people being more contagious than other. I'd guess this is related to how dry someone's mouth is, though.

However, it's even more complicated than this, because after droplets are exhaled from a person, they very quickly become dehydrated (in a tenth of a second or so). This results in massive shrinking of size. So a 50 um particle might shrink to 10 um, less than 1/100th the volume, and at this point it's mostly salt, protein and maybe some virus. These dehydrated particles are what would actually be spread from one person to another.

Studies that have also measured the number of particles of various sizes exhaled by subjects during normal breathing, speaking, or coughing. These studies generally report far greater numbers of these particles than viral copies, which is consistent with the saliva data that indicate most particles contain few if any viral copies (This, by the way, is very strong evidence against the Rancourt link posted upthread, claiming that masks don't work, because a single droplet or aerosol particle contains an infectious amount of virus).
Does the amount of saliva a person produces determine some of this?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY