Coronavirus: How dangerous a threat?

[Unchained]

Listened to a fascinating radio interview with people from the San Diego county prosecutors office..basic summary..building design mandates elevator use to reach a majority of courtrooms. Nobody sure how current architecture and procedures could seat a jury. Not sure how to assemble everyone in a space that can allow all the basics,including facing your accuser.
social distancing looks bad for current legal system..
also read a kind of drive by survey that asked NBA and NFL fans about returning to watch live events..most were reluctant wo a vaccine.

 

[yaco]

Face masks are a continuing debating issue world-wide - The Australian CMO has re-emphasised he prefers people not to wear face masks as he would like to keep the supplies for medical staff - In Hong Kong, the community is strong on face masks and hand sanitizers, though they don't necessarily follow social distancing protocols - In saying that the rate of new infections in HK has been on a downward spiral for the last week after people rushed home from overseas and the rate of local transmission is limited.

 

[jmdirt]

Face masks are a continuing debating issue world-wide - The Australian CMO has re-emphasised he prefers people not to wear face masks as he would like to keep the supplies for medical staff - In Hong Kong, the community is strong on face masks and hand sanitizers, though they don't necessarily follow social distancing protocols - In saying that the rate of new infections in HK has been on a downward spiral for the last week after people rushed home from overseas and the rate of local transmission is limited.

I'm not sure that there is a debate among medical people, the debate is among people who don't give a rip. Really, common sense tells you that if you have something over your mouth/nose less snotlets will end up on items in the grocery store. In the USA they emphasize that you should not use masks that are used by medical personnel. One important thing is not to adjust the mask once you are contaminated (touched something).

But, back to my original assertion, the USA CDC has stated that to protect others you should cover your mouth/nose when in public places. So if you don't do that, you are basically saying that you don't care about the health of others.

EDIT: I'm not sure that there ever was a debate. I think that the medical community saw the early rush on masks that were needed at hospitals and hit the brakes on community use.

 

[yaco]

I'm not sure that there is a debate among medical people, the debate is among people who don't give a rip. Really, common sense tells you that if you have something over your mouth/nose less snotlets will end up on items in the grocery store. In the USA they emphasize that you should not use masks that are used by medical personnel. One important thing is not to adjust the mask once you are contaminated (touched something).

But, back to my original assertion, the USA CDC has stated that to protect others you should cover your mouth/nose when in public places. So if you don't do that, you are basically saying that you don't care about the health of others.

EDIT: I'm not sure that there ever was a debate. I think that the medical community saw the early rush on masks that were needed at hospitals and hit the brakes on community use.

Wow - The Australian CMO has advised people as in the last few days it's not necessary to wear face masks - That is on public record - The debate about the use of face masks for the public has covered many column inches in the last month or two - Some countries have even made it law to wear masks as part of the current restrictions - I live in Hong Kong where around 97% of people wear face masks, though it's not law - You are better to allow people to make their own decisions - I am strong in the view there has been too much emphasis placed on the public using face masks, instead of the use of hand sanitizers/soap and water which are far more effective to stop the virus .

 

[jmdirt]

Wow - The Australian CMO has advised people as in the last few days it's not necessary to wear face masks - That is on public record - The debate about the use of face masks for the public has covered many column inches in the last month or two - Some countries have even made it law to wear masks as part of the current restrictions - I live in Hong Kong where around 97% of people wear face masks, though it's not law - You are better to allow people to make their own decisions - I am strong in the view there has been too much emphasis placed on the public using face masks, instead of the use of hand sanitizers/soap and water which are far more effective to stop the virus .

Back to my statement about common sense: if covering your face when shopping could reduce your snotlet spread isn't it worth it (I think that even the most crude home made masks are grabbing most of the goo)? I don't think that people need a medical professional to tell them that keeping at least some of their snotlets in a mask is better than spreading them all. I'm really only talking about supermarkets were people are touching millions of items that potentially have snotlets on them.

Your last sentence is an either/or when IMO it should be both. If you get your full load of C19 snotlets on the beans, and the next person grabs those beans and then by mistake scratches their nose (yep bad move but)...you get the idea. You don't care if you spread your snotlets because people should just wash their hands more?

 

[Cookster15]

Back to my statement about common sense: if covering your face when shopping could reduce your snotlet spread isn't it worth it (I think that even the most crude home made masks are grabbing most of the goo)? I don't think that people need a medical professional to tell them that keeping at least some of their snotlets in a mask is better than spreading them all. I'm really only talking about supermarkets were people are touching millions of items that potentially have snotlets on them.

Your last sentence is an either/or when IMO it should be both. If you get your full load of C19 snotlets on the beans, and the next person grabs those beans and then by mistake scratches their nose (yep bad move but)...you get the idea. You don't care if you spread your snotlets because people should just wash their hands more?

This only applies if you are already sick in which case you should not be out in public anyway. If you are asymptomatic you won't emit snotlets. Agree with Yaco the use of hand sanitizers/soap and water which are far more effective to stop the virus and this is what the medicos are telling us if you listen to them. This combined with strict social isolation will kill off this scourge no need for everyone to wear masks.

 

[Kaptain Kool]

In my country, it's now law that one must wear a mask when going outside. Most people just use cotton. And I know many people who continue to hang out in crowded places because they think that wearing a mask prevents themselves from catching the virus. Neighbors visit each other. And when their kids who haven't left the house in 3 weeks get (what might be) colds, they still don't make the connection that they can bring viruses back home. Thankfully, we have that sweet, sweet tropical climate to wipe away our many mistakes.

 

[Merckx index]

Have a question - It seems the longer COVID19 spreads in the community equals a greater virulence and strength in its symptoms . Why is this the case.?

Actually, it's usually the opposite. The virus becomes less deadly. From the point of view of the virus, the ideal situation is when no one dies, and no one gets very sick. That way, the time in which people can interact with others, spreading the virus, is maximized. So mutations that result in less sick people and lower mortality, tend to out-compete earlier, more deadly, versions of the virus.

If there appears to be greater virulence, it may be because as more people become infected, the average viral load someone is infected with is likely to increase. This may result in worse symptoms, though the jury is still out on that for this virus.

With regard to the Austrian study. Currently, the naive or nominal mortality rate in Austria is 2.44%. As I've explained before, this is an under-estimate, because many cases are still active, and will result in more deaths. We can also determine a ceiling on the mortality rate, by dividing deaths, by closed cases: 4.86%. This is an over-estimate, because deaths tend to happen more quickly than recoveries.

The infection rate the study reported, 0.33%, compares to a rate of about 0.10% at the time of the study. The difference reflects asymptomatic individuals. So we can multiply the mortality rates by .10/.33, and get a more accurate rate of 0.73 - 1.46%. The lower number is likely to be closer to the true rate than the higher rate. I say this just from observing the way the two rates converged in China. The only other qualification is that that 0.33% rate has a very high degree of uncertainty, so the mortality rate could be considerably higher or lower.

My guess is that when Austria planned this study, they anticipated a much higher number of negatives. Even 5% of the population would have given about 75 negatives, which would be a much more reliable number. The study was designed like a political poll, and keep in mind that in a political poll, a sample size of just 500 results in an uncertainty of just 3-4%. This is because in such a poll, there are usually only two choices, so either choice is going to yield several hundred answers. Given that the actual infection rate is so low, far more individuals need to be tested, at least ten times the number actually tested.

Despite the large uncertainty of the infection rate, the study blows a huge hole in theories/models that propose a large number of silent or asymptomatic individuals. Even at the limits of uncertainty, we can conclude that < 2 % of the population is infected. Given that the sample approximated randomness, and that the situation in Austria is not wildly different from other countries, this should be pretty much the case everywhere else. The German study did find a much higher % of people with antibodies, but that was in one town known to have a high infection rate.

Finally, another point to keep in mind. There are four types of individuals a study like this wants to identify: 1) positives with symptoms; 2) positives with no symptoms; 3) former positives with symptoms who have recovered; 4) former positives with symptoms who have recovered. This study only identified members of the first two groups. We can accurately estimate the number in the third group from the actual data of active vs. recovereds. They're about equal in number. I assume that because of this, the number of individuals in group 4), are probably about equal to the number in group 2). From this, we can estimate the total number of infected as about twice that actually found, i.e., 0.66%.

 

[Koronin]

Actually, it's usually the opposite. The virus becomes less deadly. From the point of view of the virus, the ideal situation is when no one dies, and no one gets very sick. That way, the time in which people can interact with others, spreading the virus, is maximized. So mutations that result in less sick people and lower mortality, tend to out-compete earlier, more deadly, versions of the virus.

If there appears to be greater virulence, it may be because as more people become infected, the average viral load someone is infected with is likely to increase. This may result in worse symptoms, though the jury is still out on that for this virus.

With regard to the Austrian study. Currently, the naive or nominal mortality rate in Austria is 2.44%. As I've explained before, this is an under-estimate, because many cases are still active, and will result in more deaths. We can also determine a ceiling on the mortality rate, by dividing deaths, by closed cases: 4.86%. This is an over-estimate, because deaths tend to happen more quickly than recoveries.

The infection rate the study reported, 0.33%, compares to a rate of about 0.10% at the time of the study. The difference reflects asymptomatic individuals. So we can multiply the mortality rates by .10/.33, and get a more accurate rate of 0.73 - 1.46%. The lower number is likely to be closer to the true rate than the higher rate. I say this just from observing the way the two rates converged in China. The only other qualification is that that 0.33% rate has a very high degree of uncertainty, so the mortality rate could be considerably higher or lower.

My guess is that when Austria planned this study, they anticipated a much higher number of negatives. Even 5% of the population would have given about 75 negatives, which would be a much more reliable number. The study was designed like a political poll, and keep in mind that in a political poll, a sample size of just 500 results in an uncertainty of just 3-4%. This is because in such a poll, there are usually only two choices, so either choice is going to yield several hundred answers. Given that the actual infection rate is so low, far more individuals need to be tested, at least ten times the number actually tested.

Despite the large uncertainty of the infection rate, the study blows a huge hole in theories/models that propose a large number of silent or asymptomatic individuals. Even at the limits of uncertainty, we can conclude that < 2 % of the population is infected. Given that the sample approximated randomness, and that the situation in Austria is not wildly different from other countries, this should be pretty much the case everywhere else. The German study did find a much higher % of people with antibodies, but that was in one town known to have a high infection rate.

Finally, another point to keep in mind. There are four types of individuals a study like this wants to identify: 1) positives with symptoms; 2) positives with no symptoms; 3) former positives with symptoms who have recovered; 4) former positives with symptoms who have recovered. This study only identified members of the first two groups. We can accurately estimate the number in the third group from the actual data of active vs. recovereds. They're about equal in number. I assume that because of this, the number of individuals in group 4), are probably about equal to the number in group 2). From this, we can estimate the total number of infected as about twice that actually found, i.e., 0.66%.

For those who have recovered (without knowing they had it) don't we then need anti body tests to show that?

 

[hrotha]

This only applies if you are already sick in which case you should not be out in public anyway. If you are asymptomatic you won't emit snotlets. Agree with Yaco the use of hand sanitizers/soap and water which are far more effective to stop the virus and this is what the medicos are telling us if you listen to them. This combined with strict social isolation will kill off this scourge no need for everyone to wear masks.

You can be asymptomatic and still cough or sneeze for any number of reasons unrelated to the disease, though.

 

[Koronin]

You can be asymptomatic and still cough or sneeze for any number of reasons unrelated to the disease, though.

At least in NC it's allergy and sinus season, so yep runny nose , coughing and sneezing due to either of those.

 

[Merckx index]

For those who have recovered (without knowing they had it) don't we then need anti body tests to show that?

Yes, definitely. A well-designed random Ab test will give us a better idea of the infection rate. It will miss the people who have become infected and haven't yet developed Abs, but there are ways of estimating their numbers.

 

[Koronin]

Yes, definitely. A well-designed random Ab test will give us a better idea of the infection rate. It will miss the people who have become infected and haven't yet developed Abs, but there are ways of estimating their numbers.

True, although I would also like to see the antibody test available to those who would like it to find out if what they had previously was the Covid-19 or if it was something else.

 

[jmdirt]

This only applies if you are already sick in which case you should not be out in public anyway. If you are asymptomatic you won't emit snotlets. Agree with Yaco the use of hand sanitizers/soap and water which are far more effective to stop the virus and this is what the medicos are telling us if you listen to them. This combined with strict social isolation will kill off this scourge no need for everyone to wear masks.

WOW! That is not accurate. That is exactly how asymptomatic people spread it. You just can't make a dangerous statement like that, and then follow up with a comment about listening to doctors. Yes, please listen to them!

I'm not arguing the effectiveness of soap and water...this was established long before C19. but if you read the scenario I offered you will see that soap and water isn't going to help the poor soul who rubbed their nose before they remembered not to.

In any case, I will respect other people and wear a mask when I'm at the supermarket.

No need for those who don't care about others to wear masks.

 

[Cookster15]

No need for those who don't care about others to wear masks.

That was unnecessary.

My comment about masks is echoed by Australian experts. Currently our country is doing quite well to limit new infections and only a small minority are wearing masks. Social isolation, stay at home lockdown unless you have a good reason to be out and reinforcing strict hand hygiene are the big reasons why Australia has done well to date and we are allowed to exercise outside . Not masks. Check the stats!

 

[Cannavaro]

I am not sure this article was already linked: elpais
You can find graphics about daily mortality in Spain. At the peak 1000 additional deaths a day were counted. They have also graphs for different age groups and compare the official corona-deaths with the excess mortality. In Madrid and in Catalonia they seem to overcount in the rest of the country they seem to undercount. Maybe overcount in Madrid is the result of less traffic incidents.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Important thread about interpreting antibody tests on random populations with low expected prevalence. It is a lot more tricky than it seems.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1248618166437072897

View: https://mobile.twitter.com/taaltree/status/1248618166437072897

 

[Jagartrott]

Hopeful news about a vaccine (developed in Oxford):

Coronavirus vaccine could be ready by September

A vaccine against coronavirus could be ready as soon as September, the British scientist leading one of the world’s most advanced efforts has said.Sarah Gilbert, professor of vaccinology at Oxford University, told The Times she was “80 per cent confident” that the vaccine being developed by her team

www.thetimes.co.uk

expert reaction to Times interview about vaccines with Prof Sarah Gilbert | Science Media Centre

This is obviously just one of many groups developing a vaccine, but this one looks ahead of the peloton. Mass production will be an issue, though they will apparently start with that already before they get the final go-ahead. Normally not done because of the financial risks, but now obviously there are other priorities.

 

[djpbaltimore]

That is good news. There are really a lot of different vectors being developed. How authorities are going to decide which is most effective is unclear to me. The last time this was so important was Sabin and Salk.

 

[Nomad]

My suspicions all along!

Wuhan lab was performing experiments on bats from coronavirus caves

The Wuhan Institute of Virology (scientists pictured) did experiments on bats captured more in Yunnan. Sequencing of the Covid-19 genome has traced it to bats found in Yunnan's caves.

www.google.com

"Senior Government sources said that while 'the balance of scientific advice' was still that the deadly virus was first transmitted to humans from a live animal market in Wuhan, an accident at the laboratory in the Chinese city was 'no longer being discounted'.

"According to one unverified claim, scientists at the institute could have become infected after being sprayed with blood containing the virus, and then passed it on to the local community"

U.S. gave $3.7million grant to lab at center coronavirus scandal

The US National Institutes of Health, a government agency, awarded a $3.7million research grant to the Wuhan Institute of Virology to study coronavirus transmission.

www.google.com

"The revelation that the Wuhan Institute was experimenting on bats from the area already known to be the source of COVID-19 - and doing so with American money - has sparked further fears that the lab, and not the market, is the original outbreak source."

IMO, I always suspected that the outbreak originated from the lab in Wahun and not from the wet market - hence the initial cover-up and disinformation they provided from the get go.

And their phoney death count is ridiculous - who are they trying to fool? You combined the toxic, deadly air from chemical & waste management plants in Wahun that already causes an estimated 300,000 annual deaths from lung diseases with a strong respiratory virus, and you have a recipe for disaster! And the Chinese government reports a paltry 3300? Lol. I wouldn't doubt it's more around 20x that number.

Weiterleitungshinweis

This needs to be investigated by all World leaders. If this is found to be true, there needs to be accountability here by the Chinese government.

We're collectively about to enter into a Global Depression like never seen before in modern history. Here alone in America, mainstream economists are predicting 20% unemployment - Great Depression levels of the 1930s! It's estimated that a third of small businesses may fail. Lenders are predicting 25% of mortgages could foreclose. The amount of stress & despair on people worldwide will be unreal!

 

[djpbaltimore]

Counterpoint. It probably jumped into humans from a live animal market.

The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2 - Nature Medicine

www.nature.com

 

[jmdirt]

That was unnecessary.

My comment about masks is echoed by Australian experts. Currently our country is doing quite well to limit new infections and only a small minority are wearing masks. Social isolation, stay at home lockdown unless you have a good reason to be out and reinforcing strict hand hygiene are the big reasons why Australia has done well to date and we are allowed to exercise outside . Not masks. Check the stats!

That is absolutely necessary. If taking a simple measure like covering your mouth/nose at the grocery store can reduce other people's risk why wouldn't you do it? "Australia has done well... no masks", but maybe they could do even better, why not take all precautions? Then check the stats.

Let's do another episode of "All About Me": I've been in my house or backyard all day except for when I walk the dog (no contact with other people) and ride my bike (very limited exposure to snotlets in a windy environment) since March 20th. I have only been on two big shopping outings in that time (I did have to go out on March 22 to find things that were out of stock on the 20). I wash my hands like a madman (always have though). I quarantine my mail for 72 hours. The odds that I had C19 were slim when I went grocery shopping, but I wore a mask to protect others just in case. Why wouldn't I? When I got home I washed all of my perishable items with disinfectant wipes before I brought them into the house, and then put everything else in quarantine for four days. Then I put all of my clothing directly into the washer, thoroughly washed my hands. and then took a shower.

I only share that because maybe you think that I see face covering as a way to protect myself, I don't. I take a lot of measures to protect myself (stay home, avoid other people, hygiene, quarantine...), but I also want to protect others when I do have to go out. Maybe you think that I see face covering as the main way to control the spread of C19, I don't.

 

[yaco]

Can say that if it is proven that the virus originated from a lab which is the most likely of the conspiracy theories,then was it an accident or was it deliberate - Assuming it was an accident then how much blame can you place on the Chinese government while if it is a deliberate act then strange to inflict it on your own people - I was informed in early February the death rate in Hubei province was between 10 to 25,000 - Nomad is 100% correct that Beijing had limited knowledge about the virus in it's earliest stage because a weakness of their system of Government is not having enough control of what happens in the provinces.

 

[Koronin]

Hopeful news about a vaccine (developed in Oxford):

Coronavirus vaccine could be ready by September

A vaccine against coronavirus could be ready as soon as September, the British scientist leading one of the world’s most advanced efforts has said.Sarah Gilbert, professor of vaccinology at Oxford University, told The Times she was “80 per cent confident” that the vaccine being developed by her team

www.thetimes.co.uk

expert reaction to Times interview about vaccines with Prof Sarah Gilbert | Science Media Centre

This is obviously just one of many groups developing a vaccine, but this one looks ahead of the peloton. Mass production will be an issue, though they will apparently start with that already before they get the final go-ahead. Normally not done because of the financial risks, but now obviously there are other priorities.

This is hopeful news.

 

[Tricycle Rider]

That is absolutely necessary. If taking a simple measure like covering your mouth/nose at the grocery store can reduce other people's risk why wouldn't you do it? "Australia has done well... no masks", but maybe they could do even better, why not take all precautions? Then check the stats.

Let's do another episode of "All About Me": I've been in my house or backyard all day except for when I walk the dog (no contact with other people) and ride my bike (very limited exposure to snotlets in a windy environment) since March 20th. I have only been on two big shopping outings in that time (I did have to go out on March 22 to find things that were out of stock on the 20). I wash my hands like a madman (always have though). I quarantine my mail for 72 hours. The odds that I had C19 were slim when I went grocery shopping, but I wore a mask to protect others just in case. Why wouldn't I? When I got home I washed all of my perishable items with disinfectant wipes before I brought them into the house, and then put everything else in quarantine for four days. Then I put all of my clothing directly into the washer, thoroughly washed my hands. and then took a shower.

I only share that because maybe you think that I see face covering as a way to protect myself, I don't. I take a lot of measures to protect myself (stay home, avoid other people, hygiene, quarantine...), but I also want to protect others when I do have to go out. Maybe you think that I see face covering as the main way to control the spread of C19, I don't.

Wow, you are certainly very thorough and I applaud your efforts. I'm too lazy to do all that, but I do at least wash my hands a lot anyway just out of habit.

I think at the very least masks certainly can't hurt, I always wear one on my very rare trips to the grocery stores. I have seen some shoppers who looked like they had the sniffles and not wearing anything, they might just have seasonal allergies, I do not know that and I'm not going to ask them. But what I do know is shoppers tend to pick through products (especially produce), so if they are unknowingly spreading something through hand contact I don't want to pick it up with my own hands and then inadvertently rub it into my eyes or nose.

If nothing else masks remind people to not touch their faces until they thoroughly wash their hands, doctors/experts have been stressing this for a while now. So I don't think wearing masks (as cumbersome as they are) are hurting anything when absolutely having to mingle out in the public.