Coronavirus: How dangerous a threat?

[djpbaltimore]

I don't know what the big deal is because when the NBA had the outbreak back in March that started this whole panic with the sportsworld, the vast majority of the players were asymptomatic.

Contrast this with Steph Curry back in March before the coronavirus positives, who tested positive for the seasonal flu (A-strain) and was sick enough to miss a game or two.

So, with the majority of cases asymptomatic for pro-basketball players, and with many that have played through games in the past with seasonal flu symptoms, why the delay in resuming the season is beyond me. And for older coaches as you mentioned (Pop, Casey, D'Antoni are over 65) the league will have to figure something out to reduce their risk.

I think that is one of the big problems. All of these people are going to be sequestered away, but if somebody picks it up and complacency leads them to not take precautions, you might end up like the Ukrainian club soccer team where a big chunk of the team is infected. What do you do then? Especially if it happens in the playoffs and people need 14 day quarantines.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/spor...85c82a-a5a4-11ea-898e-b21b9a83f792_story.html

 

[jmdirt]

I worry about the term 'second wave' - As far as I am concerned many countries were hit by a 'tidal wave' because of a lack of planning and preparation - Countries now understand enough about the virus to ensure that any future outbreaks are ripples.

I hope that you are correct, but I'm not optimistic that most places in the USA can handle another surge (or the first surge since some places really haven't been smacked yet). I don't like the wave analogy really either, but because it isn't close enough to what is happening. A wave doesn't hit the shore constantly for months before the next wave hits.

 

[jmdirt]

I don't know what the big deal is because when the NBA had the outbreak back in March that started this whole panic with the sportsworld, the vast majority of the players were asymptomatic.

For example, Mitchell & Gobert, both starters for the Jazz, tested positive with Mitchell asymptomatic & Gobert reporting very mild symptoms. Mitchell was scheduled to start while Gobert was going to take it easy and sit the bench the night of their game when the season was abruptly cancelled. Also, Four(4) players from the Brooklyn Nets tested positive with three asymptomatic, including superstar Kevin Durant.

Weiterleitungshinweis

Kevin Durant, 3 Other Brooklyn Nets Players Test Positive for Coronavirus

Kevin Durant is one of four Brooklyn Nets players to have tested positive for the new coronavirus, according to The Athletic, bringing the total to seven known players in the NBA

www.google.com

Contrast this with Steph Curry back in March before the coronavirus positives, who tested positive for the seasonal flu (A-strain) and was sick enough to miss a game or two.

Stephen Curry to miss Golden State Warriors' game vs. Philadelphia 76ers due to flu

Stephen Curry returned this week from a 58-game absence, but he's out again for the Warriors as he's now being treated for seasonal flu.

www.google.com

So, with the majority of cases asymptomatic for pro-basketball players, and with many that have played through games in the past with seasonal flu symptoms, why the delay in resuming the season is beyond me. And for older coaches as you mentioned (Pop, Casey, D'Antoni are over 65) the league will have to figure something out to reduce their risk.

"vast majority"? I remember less than a dozen reported positives.

Asymptomatic players ARE the big deal! They play and spread it to other players, while players with symptoms would sit out and not spread it.

That being said, the "August Madness in a Bubble NBA Tournament" promises to be exciting!

 

[Merckx index]

Asymptomatic players ARE the big deal! They play and spread it to other players, while players with symptoms would sit out and not spread it.

If the NBA is going to test players every day, asymptomatics don't matter. They will test positive, too. Again, the problem* appears to be false negatives. One hopeful sign is that the Stanford antibody study of people associated with MLB reported only 0.7% of the subjects had antibodies. That suggests that people can reduce their exposure, and these people didn't even live in the bubble that's being proposed for the NBA and other sports.

*I originally wrote "[word that begins with ch and rhymes with think] in the armor". The censor changed it to "beloved patriot in the armor".

 

[jmdirt]

If the NBA is going to test players every day, asymptomatics don't matter. They will test positive, too. Again, the problem* appears to be false negatives. One hopeful sign is that the Stanford antibody study of people associated with MLB reported only 0.7% of the subjects had antibodies. That suggests that people can reduce their exposure, and these people didn't even live in the bubble that's being proposed for the NBA and other sports.

*I originally wrote "[word that begins with ch and rhymes with think] in the armor". The censor changed it to "beloved patriot in the armor".

Nice correction huh?!

I have only used that word/phrase to mean weakness or hole. ..I have a lot of beloved patriots in my armor!

 

[Sciatic]

"vast majority"? I remember less than a dozen reported positives.

Asymptomatic players ARE the big deal! They play and spread it to other players, while players with symptoms would sit out and not spread it.

That being said, the "August Madness in a Bubble NBA Tournament" promises to be exciting!

They should have a lottery for “season Passes” where, day, 20 fans get to attend any and all the games as long as they are tested daily, maintain distancing rules, and must stay inside the “bubbl

 

[Sciatic]

They should have a lottery for “season Passes” where, day, 20 fans get to attend any and all the games as long as they are tested daily, maintain distancing rules, and must stay inside the “bubbl

Sorry, CN cut me off—I’m Joking but can you imagine the extra revenue they could raise?

 

[movingtarget]

I worry about the term 'second wave' - As far as I am concerned many countries were hit by a 'tidal wave' because of a lack of planning and preparation - Countries now understand enough about the virus to ensure that any future outbreaks are ripples.

You mean the countries that never addressed the issues in the first wave and still haven't ? The Spanish Flu was worse when it returned but hopefully, many countries are paying attention to history and most pandemics have more than one outbreak so a second wave seems to be expected by many scientists. The matter is how bad will it be. Although I have also heard with this virus that the newer versions of the virus are weaker, at least some countries are reporting that finding.

 

[movingtarget]

This isn't directed at you moving target, but I'm seeing too many of these prediction articles. "We don't really know so here are 3, 5, 7, things that could happen...". If you toss out enough general ideas, one might be close, but tossing out ideas is what makes people stop listening because most of them won't be accurate. That has been a big problem with all of the models dealing with COVID19, they are meant for scientific discovery, not mass consumption so when one is slightly wrong or completely wrong people tune out because they don't understand.

Yes of course, lots of conjecture at the moment and science takes it's time to understand things fully. If anything I have noticed a little drop off in media regarding the virus as newer issues seem to be trending more ! Not helped by journal articles of dubious quality as well !

 

[djpbaltimore]

You mean the countries that never addressed the issues in the first wave and still haven't ? The Spanish Flu was worse when it returned but hopefully, many countries are paying attention to history and most pandemics have more than one outbreak so a second wave seems to be expected by many scientists. The matter is how bad will it be. Although I have also heard with this virus that the newer versions of the virus are weaker, at least some countries are reporting that finding.

I think it is highly debatable that the virus is weakening. The empirical evidence for that supposition is purely anecdotal. I think it is due in large part to the decrease of the virus in the general population of those countries. Fewer cases of the virus will cause fewer cases of the worst type, which will appear to the doctors as weakening. There could also be some seasonal effects as well.

 

[jmdirt]

As part of Idaho's stage 3 opening bars opened last nigh. One of "THE" bars downtown had trouble convincing people to physical distance so they closed early. Huge props to the owner for having the balls (and resources) to pull the plug!
*I assume that this was happening at all of them, but this guy put safety at the top.

 

[Merckx index]

I think it is highly debatable that the virus is weakening. The empirical evidence for that supposition is purely anecdotal. I think it is due in large part to the decrease of the virus in the general population of those countries. Fewer cases of the virus will cause fewer cases of the worst type, which will appear to the doctors as weakening. There could also be some seasonal effects as well.

And yet there are still people claiming that the virus has an inherent property of slowing down. Here's Michael Levitt, a structural biologist and Nobel Laureate:

The virus seems to have this intrinsic property of not growing exponentially but actually growing slower and slower each day.

Levitt predicted when the spread of virus would stop in China, based on a progressively smaller increase in death% day by day. He's gone on to analyze dozens of other countries, and claims that the data support the notion that the virus will stop when the death rate is 1/1000 (But NYC has at least doubled that number).

I don't understand how a scientist can believe this without any sequence evidence that would indicate changes in transmissibility or symptoms of infection. Here's his explanation:

Imagine I had a confirmed case of COVID. Unbeknownst to me, a declared case, I’ve also infected my friends, my kids, people near me. And this means on the first day, I can infect people, but then the next day, I can’t find people so easily to infect. In some ways, what’s happening is that visible cases are having a hard time finding people to infect, because the invisible cases have already infected them. Since then, there’s been a lot of extra findings about maybe we have some natural immunity to the virus as well.{/quote]

Seems to me he's grasping at straws. For starters, much of the infections may not be people you know. This is how the pandemic got started, people traveling and exposing strangers to the virus. Then in a local community, many of the infections may be to strangers you mingle with in a supermarket, mall, or some mass gathering. It's kind of ironic that Levitt assumes most people you infect will be those you are familiar with, because the lockdowns were instituted precisely to limit exposure to strangers, and Levitt doesn't think lockdowns or social distancing do any good.

What does he mean by invisible cases? Asymptomatics? They're probably not much more than half of the total of infected. Maybe presymptomatics, but so what? Saying that they've already infected most of the people a known symptomatic could infect is just saying that much of the spread goes on from people we don't know are spreading. That isn't to say that that limits the spread. i really don't know what his point is here.

He seems to be saying that we're close to herd immunity,, but we aren't anywhere near that. Levitt claims that herd immunity can be achieved with 30% infections, which no epidemiologist I'm aware of would agree with. He seems to infer this from mortality rates of infected reported to be 0.2-1.0%, and his 1/1000 rule. But even if that were the case, antibody studies show that very few places have come close to 30% infected rates, and then only small, densely-populated areas.

I don't know what he's referring to when he says we have natural immunity, but even if that were the case, why would it have an effect only after a certain number of infections? Does he think that some fraction of the population is immune, would not become infected even if in very close contact with someone who is? That's an intriguing possibility, but I don't think there's any evidence for it yet.

There have been maybe five or six situations where there was massive infection, including on the Diamond Princess cruise ship or provinces in Italy. You will find that the final death count is something like a tenth of a percent of the population.

The DP has recorded a death rate of close to 0.4% of the total population on board--and there are still several active cases, after all this time. Lombardy is at about 0.16%. NYC may be as high as 0.25%. Levitt would probably argue 1/1000 is only a rough figure, but this is just what you'd expect when many different places are using many different approaches, to varying degrees, to halt. the spread.

In any case, Levitt thinks social distancing doesn't matter. He thinks that the reduction in cases and deaths that so many countries have achieved following. lockdowns and other social restrictions have resulted from this intrinsic property of the virus or whatever. But the evidence for that really isn't very good. He points out Sweden, but in the first place, Swedes have practiced SD to some extent, even if the government didn't mandate it. And in the second place, Sweden has a high death rate, far higher than other Scandinavian countries. Norway in particular is a night-and-day comparison. i don't know how you could compare the two countries and not conclude that the lockdown, as well as aggressive testing and contact tracing, doesn't work.

He also notes that Japan, with a very high population density, has done very well in controlling the spread of the virus. But Japan shut down large public gatherings early, which are probably the source of many super-spreading events, and the customs of Japanese are also thought to have helped.

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2020/...-19-curve-could-be-naturally-self-flattening/

More on the NBA. Players who test positive will be quarantined for seven days. This is consistent with that study I discussed earlier, that infectiousness is mostly gone by a week after infection. There will be a maximum of 1600 people in the bubble--the campus where the games take place--and players can have a limit of three family members staying with them.

 

[yaco]

You mean the countries that never addressed the issues in the first wave and still haven't ? The Spanish Flu was worse when it returned but hopefully, many countries are paying attention to history and most pandemics have more than one outbreak so a second wave seems to be expected by many scientists. The matter is how bad will it be. Although I have also heard with this virus that the newer versions of the virus are weaker, at least some countries are reporting that finding.

The Spanish Flu is a bad comparison because it happened near the end of WW1, so there was always a chance of a second wave with returning soldiers travelling throughout the world, while in comparison with COVID19, countries have locked their national borders.

 

[Jagartrott]

Levitt predicted when the spread of virus would stop in China, based on a progressively smaller increase in death% day by day. He's gone on to analyze dozens of other countries, and claims that the data support the notion that the virus will stop when the death rate is 1/1000 (But NYC has at least doubled that number).

The latest antibody study in Belgium showed that 6.9% of samples had covid-antibodies mid-May. These were blood samples taken for non-related covid-issues. The researcher says that the number probably is a mild underestimation as some asymptomatics do not have detectable antibody concentrations in their blood + (and this is my own addition) they exclude blood samples from known or suspected covid-patients. So let's say the real percentage is about 9%, that would mean a little over 1 million Belgians who had corona. Mortality, which is probably spot on due to the way of counting here, is now about 9500, which would mean a mortality of c. 0.9%. For his 1/1000 death rate to be correct, almost all of the Belgians would have to have had corona by now.

I would think that countries with lower mortality had fewer outbreaks among old people and/or have a lower fraction of 75+ year-olds. Two-thirds of the dead (6200 people) here were living in care homes, out of a total of 145000 care home residents in the country. Between 55 and 65% of covid-dead were 85 years or older (for a number of care home deaths, the age is still unknown).

Other numbers for Belgium:
● 13 % of hospitalized people needs intensive care
● 42 % of patients in IC dies
● 57 % of intubated patients dies
● The average IC patient is 65 years old and stays there for 8 days (the maximum is 67 days)

 

[Nomad]

"vast majority"? I remember less than a dozen reported positives.

Asymptomatic players ARE the big deal! They play and spread it to other players, while players with symptoms would sit out and not spread it.

That being said, the "August Madness in a Bubble NBA Tournament" promises to be exciting!

There were 13 positives with players and one undisclosed Denver Nugget employee with the majority of those asymptomatic. There were no hospitalizations or anything like that (unless I'm missing something and you're aware of any hospitalizations with active players):

Coronavirus updates: NBA players, Von Miller, other sports figures who tested positive for COVID-19

Sporting News is tracking those from the sports world who test positive for the coronavirus.

www.google.com

I don't see why asymptomatic players are a big deal when historically in the NBA there have been many cases where players suited up and played with the seasonal flu - very symptomatic and playing. Go back & check the 2011 NBA finals game #4, where Dirk Nowitzki suffering from a case of the severe flu played 39 mins and was the team's leading scorer! All this with a reported 102-degree fever! Kevin Love also played 31 mins with the flu in a game against Atlanta back in 2011. There are more cases with lesser known players and still many more that were game time decisions that ended up sitting on the bench.

So, where was all the worry with these symptomatic players spreading the flu virus to other players? Players didn't appear to be frightened in the past with players either playing or sitting the bench while dealing with the flu. And with the 13 players positive for COVID-19 and majority of those asymptomatic, and the rest reporting very mild symptoms, I don't think it's any different then dealing with the seasonal flu viruses in the past.

Players play hurt...players play sick - nothing new there.

 

[jmdirt]

There were 13 positives with players and one undisclosed Denver Nugget employee with the majority of those asymptomatic. There were no hospitalizations or anything like that (unless I'm missing something and you're aware of any hospitalizations with active players):

Coronavirus updates: NBA players, Von Miller, other sports figures who tested positive for COVID-19

Sporting News is tracking those from the sports world who test positive for the coronavirus.

www.google.com

I don't see why asymptomatic players are a big deal when historically in the NBA there have been many cases where players suited up and played with the seasonal flu - very symptomatic and playing. Go back & check the 2011 NBA finals game #4, where Dirk Nowitzki suffering from a case of the severe flu played 39 mins and was the team's leading scorer! All this with a reported 102-degree fever! Kevin Love also played 31 mins with the flu in a game against Atlanta back in 2011. There are more cases with lesser known players and still many more that were game time decisions that ended up sitting on the bench.

So, where was all the worry with these symptomatic players spreading the flu virus to other players? Players didn't appear to be frightened in the past with players either playing or sitting the bench while dealing with the flu. And with the 13 players positive for COVID-19 and majority of those asymptomatic, and the rest reporting very mild symptoms, I don't think it's any different then dealing with the seasonal flu viruses in the past.

Players play hurt...players play sick - nothing new there.

OK, 14, so how is that a "vast majority"?

I'll let one of the smarter, more articulate people explain the the worry.

 

[movingtarget]

The NBA were saying that coaches wouldn't be allowed on the bench because most of them are in the high risk category but they realize of course that coaches have to be on the bench to coach especially in playoffs. I think they are going to let the coaches make their own decision.

 

[Merckx index]

I don't see why asymptomatic players are a big deal when historically in the NBA there have been many cases where players suited up and played with the seasonal flu

Well, for one thing, the seasonal flu has a lower mortality rate. It also doesn't lead to weird cases where even (especially, it seems) young people can get sick for months. If an NBA player develops symptoms like those, his career could be over. Same for those who might develop permanent scarring of lung tissue. These cases aren't common, but when you have several hundred players potentially at risk, it wouldn't be surprising if someone is unlucky.

As far as playing with the flu and passing it on, seasonal flu is not as contagious as C19. Also, I imagine many of the coaches and older people associated with the teams get a flu shot.

 

[Koronin]

I suspect most athletes are getting the flu shot since most sports are played during flu season. The flu shot isn't going to prevent you from getting the flu, but it should make the flu (if you get it) more mild.
I may be wrong, but I would think one big hope with any Covid vaccine is that if nothing else it will make the virus more mild for anyone who gets it after having a vaccine for it.

 

[movingtarget]

Toll on health workers

Exclusive: nearly 600 US health workers died of Covid-19 – and the toll is rising

The Guardian and KHN release new figures showing the harsh toll that the pandemic is taking on the frontline health workers

www.theguardian.com

 

[jmdirt]

So yesterday I read a headline that people with type A blood have a higher risk of severe C19, an today I read a headline that bald men have a greater risk of having severe C19. If those two prove to be correct, I'm feeling a little more nervous as a 52 year old, type A+, bald man!!

 

[Merckx index]

So yesterday I read a headline that people with type A blood have a higher risk of severe C19, an today I read a headline that bald men have a greater risk of having severe C19. If those two prove to be correct, I'm feeling a little more nervous as a 52 year old, type A+, bald man!!

I couldn't believe that blood type would be associated with severity of symptoms, but it seems there is a strong correlation. They also found a reduced risk for type O, which I have, so thanks for the tip, JM.

Some of the other genes that were picked up in the study include cytokine receptors, which are involved in immune function; a protein that may be related to cancer invasiveness; and a protein related to obesity. It may be relevant that both cancer and obesity are also thought to be risk factors. I think studies like this are really important, because they begin to tease out the factors underlying why some people react more severely to the virus than others.

The baldness association is apparently related to androgen levels. A couple of studies of men admitted to hospitals found that more than 70% of them were bald. Still, age is the most important factor.

 

[Koronin]

The blood type thing is interesting. Unfortunately I don't know what my blood type is and to have the test run for that insurance won't pay without a good reason so you have to pay out of pocket if you want to do.

I agree these type of studies are helpful. They also may help in finding ways to treat the virus.

 

[Jagartrott]

I couldn't believe that blood type would be associated with severity of symptoms, but it seems there is a strong correlation. They also found a reduced risk for type O, which I have, so thanks for the tip, JM.

Some of the other genes that were picked up in the study include cytokine receptors, which are involved in immune function; a protein that may be related to cancer invasiveness; and a protein related to obesity. It may be relevant that both cancer and obesity are also thought to be risk factors. I think studies like this are really important, because they begin to tease out the factors underlying why some people react more severely to the virus than others.

The baldness association is apparently related to androgen levels. A couple of studies of men admitted to hospitals found that more than 70% of them were bald. Still, age is the most important factor.

As there are now more and more clues that the virus (also) works via blood vessels, I guess that blood characteristics could matter for its impact. I'm AB+. My wife is not only a woman, she's also O+. Luckily, we are both not bold and still younger than 40. Four months younger than 40 in my case, but still.

 

[Kaptain Kool]

So yesterday I read a headline that people with type A blood have a higher risk of severe C19, an today I read a headline that bald men have a greater risk of having severe C19. If those two prove to be correct, I'm feeling a little more nervous as a 52 year old, type A+, bald man!!

I'm not a doctor but I did drill holes into hundreds of rat's skulls in the 1990's. Two suggestions:

1. Dilute your Type A with a massive infusion of Type O.
2. Calmly explain to the COVIDs that you aren't actually bald but just shaved your head.