Covid-19 discussion and humor thread [Was: CDC says don't touch your face to avoid Covid19...Vets to the rescue!

[snafu]

4 hours ago, BillsFan4 said:

Great news!

 

Well, if it was zero yesterday, that’s great news.

It will also help us see what the results of this past week of protests containing thousands upon thousands of non-social-distancing and unmasked people will be. There’s a loud debate over the effectiveness of social distancing measures. The City is a good experiment. 

 

 

 

[K-9]

7 minutes ago, Limeaid said:

 

Especially since cases in black community are higher.

 

We did testing when I was at university.  Viruses and bacteria on items degrade fastest in hour, dry and sunny areas.

*****! Another hope dashed. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

9 hours ago, spartacus said:

The facts at this point show that COVId-19 mortality is about the same as the flu.

The biggest diff is that the most severe impact is concentrated in those >80 with compromised immune systems

which makes Covid-19 easier to combat - by protecting a small slice of easily identifiable  population.

 

The early high death counts will not be duplicated because treating doctors have stopped following the WHO protocols pushing for pnemonia treatment and ventilators.

Use of common oxygen has been instrumental in reducing ICU shortages.

 

It has been shown that zinc cripples the ability of the virus to replicate, thus allowing the immune system to eradicate the virus without any vaccine.

https://indigonaturals.net/blogs/news/supplements-that-share-a-key-pathway-with-hydroxychloroquine-for-coronavirus

 

 

A proactive program which ensures people have an adequate level of absorbable zinc and Qercetine or epigallocatechin gallate (ECGC)___ would allow most people to return to normal life immediately. 

 

but alas, no money to be made in that.

 

So a couple of points here.  We (and when I say we, I mean the best experts) really have no idea what the mortality rate is relative to flu.

The case fatality rate is much higher than flu, and what's initially published with flu is *also a case fatality rate that does not include many cases*

Annual flu mortality is always calculated after-the-fact, by reviewing death certificates, by using a flu surveillance network to estimate actual prevelance

 

Remember, a lot of people who contract flu never visit a doctor much less an emergency room, and some have only mild symptoms, too.

We won't have a good surveillance for covid-19 because surveillance testing wasn't available until well into the epidemic, so what to do?

 

There's this thing called "seasonal mortality rate", which is averaged over years.  It appears that when it is taken into account, the mortality from covid-19 may jump quite a bit.  Some papers looking at seasonal mortality in Italy are saying possibly  50% higher deaths from covid-19.

 

Initial comparisons of deaths this year to previous seasonal mortality indicate that the death rate from covid-19 is likely to be higher here in the US as well.  According to this article in the Economist, the estimates in NYC may be pretty close, but a recent report from the CDC shows excess mortality well above probable covid-19 deaths:

 

Anyway: it simply is NOT a "fact" at this point that covid-19 mortality is "about the same as the flu".  Sorry, simply not factual.  The best guess in the first paper I referenced is saying about 0.61%, which is about 3-4x flu and actually not too far off from the "best guesses" of epidemiologists who were looking at early 4-6% case fatality rates and saying "probably we're undercounting infections by ~10x"

 

I'm not a physician so I'm not going to comment upon appropriate clinical treatment except to point out once again,  fatality rates decrease when patients have ready access to hospital treatment before they are critically ill.  Certainly treatment protocols have improved as we gain knowledge.  But please keep in mind that the initial high fatality rates (both in Italy and NYC) were in part due to an overwhelmed medical system, and if the system becomes overwhelmed again, we'll see high fatality rates again.

The "zinc/Quercetine or ECGC will allow most people to resume normal life immediately" thing .  First off, your source relies heavily upon asserting that hydroxychloroquine works to cure covid-19.  We were going to have positive results by the time I'm reading it!  It's still being studied but when it comes to those positive clinical trial outcomes:

*crickets* 

It's possible it may help, but it's not likely to be a magic bullet, and it's far from a clear thing that it works by serving as a zinc ionophore increasing zinc uptake across cell membranes.  Second, while zinc may stop the covid-19 virus from replicating in the test tube - and I saw no references or data on this point in your source -  Hydroxychloroquine works in test tubes!   lots of things work in test tubes.

 

But until they're shown to work in actual patients, it's really kind of "magical thinking" to believe that Whoo! this is the answer.

Last, the "alas no money to be made on that" is, frankly, an insult to physicians and medical professionals everywhere.  Primary clinicians in the United States have a great cure for many of the common health problems that ail us such as hypertension and obesity, and they distribute this wisdom freely.  Don't eat too much, exercise regularly, follow a sensible diet like the Mediterranean diet or the DASH diet that limits salt, avoid refined food, don't smoke.  Wow, all that common physician-distributed advice really enriches the pharma industry!  Guess what part II: it's not the fault of the doctors that so many people stick their fingers in their ears and say "lalalalala not listening!" when they hear it.

 

My point is: if there were a proven low cost or next to free cure or prevention strategy,  I would happily bet the rent money that doctors all over this country would be pumping it like a bodybuilder pumps iron, and most certainly physicians in poorer countries like India, South Africa, S. America etc would be ALL over it. 
 

6 hours ago, spartacus said:

that was the original storyline.

The WHO now says asymtomatic people have little chance of spreading the virus.

this is because the viral load is is too low because their body's immune  system fought off the virus

 

Hi can you kindly provide a link to a source where WHO says this?

 

There are a number of early contact tracing reports which clearly show that asymptomatic (at the time) people spread the virus.  Some were presymptomatic, some never developed symptoms.

 

To my knowledge, in close-quarters situations like TR, the cruise ships, meatpacking plants, it is pretty clear there was asymptomatic spread.

 

With all respect, I think you may be misinterpreting something.

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

6 hours ago, spartacus said:

based on actual data, there is a conflicting position that the lockdown did nothing to stop the spread of the virus.

The biggest cause for the big improvement against the gloom and doom forecast is that the models were intentional inflated to drive the fear mongering

 

in fact, the "necessary measure" of forcing very sick people into nursing homes is probably the key factor why the numbers are as bad as they are

 

as soon as doctors stopped following the WHO treatment protocol and need for ventilators, the medical emergency was over

 

"Very sick" people were not forced into nursing homes.  The problem was releasing people who did not require hospitalization, but who may still be infectious.  Those who had homes, went home; those who lived in nursing homes, went back there.  And yes, it was stupid, and yes it undoubtedly contributed to the spread of covid-19 in some facilities; in most, covid-19 was already in the facility and spreading, sometimes from a patient who was not known to have covid-19 and was transferred back, while testing was still severely limited.  I think to call it a "key factor" would require some careful research - got any?  Many of the elders who died were living at home, or with relatives, or were infected in care facilities by infected workers. 

 

Yep, that's right, the Families First legislation exempts nursing homes and hospitals from having to provide paid time off  pending test results or to quarantine, and they are not required to provide health insurance either.  So workers who had symptoms were told "work or you won't get paid" and they worked.  There are a number of case studies of this.  My best friend's beloved Veteran father was infected this way and his care home was DEVASTATED, but they certainly were not "forced" to accept sick people much less very sick people.

Frankly this is a gimondulous pet-peeve of mine because while there are sensible and achieveable strategies to protect the vulnerable - what I hear are a lot of hollow words without putting any muscle or substance behind them.

 

Please don't make statements like "the biggest cause for the big improvement against the gloom and doom forcasts is that the models were intentionally inflated to drive the fear mongering" without sourcing them.  I would be happy to see your sources.  Mine say this:

 

There were bunches of models.   Every model rests upon assumptions.  In some of the worst forcast models, the assumption was that no social distancing interventions would take place.  That didn't happen, obviously, and thus the worst case scenarios were averted.  That doesn't mean the models were "fear mongering" or hideously wrong, it means the model used assumptions which were incorrect because we CHOSE A DIFFERENT PATH.

In some of the best models forecasting only 60,000 deaths, the assumption was that uniform social distancing interventions would remain in place through May.  That clearly also didn't happen, so we're worse off than that.  But I don't hear yelling about how hideously wrong and overly optimistic those models were.  Huh.

[Sundancer]

close to mega concert crowd in a day. 
 

Not too smart. 

 

[spartacus]

6 minutes ago, Sundancer said:

close to mega concert crowd in a day. 
 

Not too smart. 

 

unless, like all flu like illnesses, the flu season has passed along with the risk of transmission 

[spartacus]

On 6/4/2020 at 7:25 PM, JohnC said:

It is going to be interesting to follow if the demonstrations in the various locations result in a spike of cases. Crowds were tightly packed and to a significant extent were unmasked. The cause is worthy but the aftereffects of being in the crowd could have major health ramifications. I hope I'm wrong. 

riots not a problem for the virus.

the "experts' have spoken

 

https://www.zerohedge.com/health/1200-public-health-experts-advocate-mass-gatherings-because-white-supremacy-bigger-threat

 

[JohnC]

17 minutes ago, spartacus said:

riots not a problem for the virus.

the "experts' have spoken

 

https://www.zerohedge.com/health/1200-public-health-experts-advocate-mass-gatherings-because-white-supremacy-bigger-threat

 

You could listen to whomever you want to.  I am more inclined to heed his warnings over those who are more dismissive of the risk. The "experts" you listen to are not the same ones I listen to. This virus issue is a complicated issue that the experts are still grappling with. You may believe in a magical solution to this public health issue but I don't.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jun/5/dr-anthony-fauci-warns-perfect-set-spread-coronavi/

[BillsFan4]

13 hours ago, Sundancer said:

close to mega concert crowd in a day. 
 

Not too smart. 

 

 

My comment is not at all directed at their reason for protesting, but Yeah, risky to say the least. All those people shouting in close proximity make me nervous. If someone has it, they shed more virus particles when talking loudly and/or shouting. Look at that chorus practice where 1 person had it and almost everyone there ended up sick. They were indoors and didn’t have masks on, but still. It’s the same reason I worry about Leary’s crowds for any reason. I feel like it has the potential to be a covid super spreader event. 

 

I will give them credit for at least wearing masks though. From every picture and video I saw it looked like the vast majority were wearing them. I guess we’re about to get a good idea of how effective masks are at limiting the spread of covid, huh? 

 

 

[BillsFan4]

From NPR:

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/06/05/871102763/new-coronavirus-hot-spots-emerge-across-south-and-in-california-as-northeast-slo

“New Coronavirus Hot Spots Emerge Across South And In California, As Northeast Slows”

 

Quote

Mass protests against police violence across the U.S. have public health officials concerned about an accelerated spread of the coronavirus. But even before the protests began May 26, sparked by the May 25 death of George Floyd in Minneapolis, several states had been recording big jumps in the number of cases.

 

The head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Robert Redfield, registered his concern at a congressional hearing Thursday.

 

"We're very concerned that our public health message isn't resonating," Redfield said. "We continue to try to figure out how to penetrate the message with different groups. The pictures the chairwoman showed me are great examples of serious problems."

 

The U.S. is still seeing roughly 20,000 new cases a day. There's a wide range from state to state, from one case a day, on average, last week in Hawaii all the way up to to 2,614 new cases a day in California. Specific areas in the Golden State have become hot spots, along with certain counties in every Southern state.

 

The northeastern states of New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts — which among them accounted for a quarter of all COVID-19 deaths in the U.S. — are seeing a substantial slowing of new cases.

 

Quote

Tennessee and the Carolinas among Southern states showing jumps 

In the South, the timing of new cases appears to be linked to the reopening of restaurants, barber shops and gyms, which started in most states more than a month ago. Figures tracked by NPR show the number of cases in North Carolina and South Carolina this week is up by roughly 60% from two weeks ago. In Tennessee, that increase is 75%.

 

Georgia and Louisiana look steadier, but they experienced some of the highest cases counts and fatalities in the region in recent weeks, at the height of the pandemic.

 

In Southern states that were quick to reopen, officials sometimes felt the need to explain big increases in case counts on some days. In Georgia, for example, a state health official said a big one-day increase was because of a backlog of reporting casesfrom a commercial lab. In Tennessee this week, a daily jump of 800 cases was blamed partially on an ongoing prison outbreak that yielded 350 new positive test results.

 

California case counts driven by populous Los Angeles County

In California, counties are continuing to allow businesses to reopen even as newly confirmed coronavirus cases climb. The state experienced a 40% jump in cases over the last week. Large metro areas like Los Angeles and San Francisco have gradually lifted restrictions and Californians have responded by traveling to beaches and neighboring areas, blurring the effectiveness of the varying degrees of restrictions between adjacent counties.

 

In the Northeast, where New York City became the U.S. epicenter of the pandemic for weeks, there are still thousands of new cases every day, although the rate of increase has slowed. It's down 41% in New Jersey over the past two weeks, down 33% in New York and down 13% in Massachusetts. But health officials caution that doesn't mean the coronavirus is under control in these three states. New York is still seeing more than 1,000 new cases a day; over the past week, Massachusetts averaged just over 500 a day, and New Jersey had close to 800.

 

 

[BillsFan4]

 

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

On 6/5/2020 at 1:21 PM, spartacus said:

based on actual data, there is a conflicting position that the lockdown did nothing to stop the spread of the virus.

 

If you'd be kind enough to provide a source for this conflicting position based on actual data, I'd be happy to read it and give an evidence-based assessment
I think that would be more meaningful (and possibly more useful) than me just giving an off-the-cuff reaction.

 

Quote

as soon as doctors stopped following the WHO treatment protocol and need for ventilators, the medical emergency was over

 

I think this is pretty misleading.  Here is a BBC lay article that IMHO does a very nice job of putting the learnings about the virus in to understandable terms.

https://www.bbc.com/news/52760992 

I recommend it as a good read - then you can decide an opinion of it.

 

Everyone (including the physicians at WHO) underwent a pretty steep learning curve.  What was realized is that covid-19 is actually not a respiratory disease.  It can cause respiratory symptoms, severely damage the lungs, and cause critically low oxygen levels, but the underlying disease process is far broader than respiratory.

 

To characterize improved scientific and medical understanding of what is still a very severe disease which is very challenging to treat, is IMHO misleading.

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

4 hours ago, JohnC said:

You could listen to whomever you want to.  I am more inclined to heed his warnings over those who are more dismissive of the risk. The "experts" you listen to are not the same ones I listen to. This virus issue is a complicated issue that the experts are still grappling with. You may believe in a magical solution to this public health issue but I don't.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jun/5/dr-anthony-fauci-warns-perfect-set-spread-coronavi/

 

Positive things about the protests:

-they take place out-of-doors, where ventilation is typically excellent and UV exposure from sunlight may have an impact in reducing viral titer

-in news coverage I have seen, many people are wearing masks or other facial coverage, at least over their mouths

-people may not be spending huge amounts of time with the exact same people in the exact same configuration as when seated or kneeling at a religious service or in a restaurant, or standing at assigned stations in a meat packing plant.  BUT, I have never participated in an actual protest demonstration so I don't know.

-It appears a large majority of the protestors are relatively young, HS or college age or in their 20s-30s so they may be less likely to overwhelm the hospital system themselves

 

Negative things about the protests:

-No one knows the effect of inhaling crowd-control chemicals on covid-19 susceptibility

-Likewise of just the stress of being in a crowd for hours, not to mention some people being beaten

-Certainly being detained and incarcerated would place people in a high-risk situation for covid-19 spread with hours of close contact in vehicles or cells with limited ventilation

-Because they are young, protestors who do develop covid-19 may become asymptomatic or presymptomatic spreaders (it seems young healthy people may take 14 days to show symptoms), thus they may be more likely to spread the disease unwittingly to older relatives, mentors, and friends if they don't observe social distancing outside the protests

 

At a guess, in each city where there are protests, it's probably going to take 4-8 weeks to see whether or not there will be a protest-induced spike.  I can try to run through the math behind that guess if anyone is interested

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

On 6/3/2020 at 12:11 AM, Bad Things said:

Are people even talking about Covid-19 up in America anymore?

 

I don't know about "people" in general, but I can tell you this.

 

My kid started an internship 1 June at a major US manufacturing company, at a plant outside Buffalo.  This is not a young techie company, it's a >100 yr old manufacturing concern with a bit of a stodgy rep.  It's a union plant.

 

They are taking covid-19 quite seriously as they reopen.  There are daily temperature checks and PPE checks upon entry.  Everyone must wear a mask and PPE and if you don't have yours on as you enter you put it on.  If you don't have it, they issue one.  Eye protection.  Masks stay on all day except for lunch breaks or water.  The cafeteria is BYOL only, no food service, and many seats are covered with plastic to space people out.  Disinfectant is everywhere.  Instructions are if it's not your assigned workspace, you spray it down and wipe when you leave.   Many white collar workers are still working from home by directive or alternating days on site, to de-densify the office space for those who must be there.

The steps they are taking were negotiated and agreed with the union, which did NOT press for fewer measures - the contrary.  You refuse to wear a mask or put it back on when asked, the union is not gonna have your back.

 

I just found it interesting that for all the talk in segments of the popular press about "fake virus" and all that, both sides of the "boots on the floor, hands on the line" crowd (management and workers) seem to be taking covid-19 seriously still.  They want to stay open, they want to get paid, "if this is what it takes, just do it".

 

 

 

 

[Augie]

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I don't know about "people" in general, but I can tell you this.

 

My kid started an internship 1 June at a major US manufacturing company, at a plant outside Buffalo.  This is not a young techie company, it's a >100 yr old manufacturing concern with a bit of a stodgy rep.  It's a union plant.

 

They are taking covid-19 quite seriously as they reopen.  There are daily temperature checks and PPE checks upon entry.  Everyone must wear a mask and PPE and if you don't have yours on as you enter you put it on.  If you don't have it, they issue one.  Eye protection.  Masks stay on all day except for lunch breaks or water.  The cafeteria is BYOL only, no food service, and many seats are covered with plastic to space people out.  Disinfectant is everywhere.  Instructions are if it's not your assigned workspace, you spray it down and wipe when you leave.   Many white collar workers are still working from home by directive or alternating days on site, to de-densify the office space for those who must be there.

The steps they are taking were negotiated and agreed with the union, which did NOT press for fewer measures - the contrary.  You refuse to wear a mask or put it back on when asked, the union is not gonna have your back.

 

I just found it interesting that for all the talk in segments of the popular press about "fake virus" and all that, both sides of the "boots on the floor, hands on the line" crowd (management and workers) seem to be taking covid-19 seriously still.  They want to stay open, they want to get paid, "if this is what it takes, just do it".

 

 

 

 

 

That’s encouraging to hear. Some jobs, you just gotta be there. I have eye appointments for myself and my mother coming up. I need more contacts. The dental hygienist I’m holding off rescheduling for a bit. I’m in no rush there. 

 

My wife’s bank says they will keep an eye on things, but don’t expect any word on going back to the office until after September 1 at the earliest. They don’t have traditional retail branches and the last I heard they had managed to get approximately 93% of more than 50k employees working remotely. That is a pretty impressive feat, in my mind. 

[Bad Things]

We just heard the great news that New Zealand no longer has any active cases of Covid-19.

There hasn't been any new cases in over 17 days and the last patient has recovered and was sent home.

 

[BillsFan4]

11 hours ago, Bad Things said:

We just heard the great news that New Zealand no longer has any active cases of Covid-19.

There hasn't been any new cases in over 17 days and the last patient has recovered and was sent home.

 

I was just coming to post this. Congrats!

 

https://www.axios.com/new-zealand-no-coronavirus-cases-covid-19-free-1f209ae3-46e5-4343-b076-189bde8c3953.html

 

Just shows you what early widespread testing and lockdowns can do. They acted very quickly to stop this virus and it paid off Big time. 

[BillsFan4]

For those now saying the lockdowns in the US were unnecessary:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/06/08/shutdowns-prevented-60-million-coronavirus-infections-us-study-finds/

“Shutdown prevented 60 million coronavirus infections, new study finds”.

 

2 different studies were published on the lockdowns in the US, UK, Europe and China.

 

1st one: the University of California at Berkeley researchers estimate stay at home orders, business closings and travel bans ended up preventing 285 million infections in China and 60 million cases in the US.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2404-8_reference.pdf

 

2nd one: researchers at Imperial College in London estimated shutdowns saved more than three million lives in 11 European countries and dropped infection rates by more than 80-percent.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2405-7

 

 

[K-9]

22 minutes ago, BillsFan4 said:

For those now saying the lockdowns in the US were unnecessary:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/06/08/shutdowns-prevented-60-million-coronavirus-infections-us-study-finds/

“Shutdown prevented 60 million coronavirus infections, new study finds”.

 

2 different studies were published on the lockdowns in the US, UK, Europe and China.

 

1st one: the University of California at Berkeley researchers estimate stay at home orders, business closings and travel bans ended up preventing 285 million infections in China and 60 million cases in the US.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2404-8_reference.pdf

 

2nd one: researchers at Imperial College in London estimated shutdowns saved more than three million lives in 11 European countries and dropped infection rates by more than 80-percent.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2405-7

 

 

Why am I not surprised? The logic seemed intuitive all along. Yet there are those that will still argue it was unnecessary, “Look at Sweden!” But that’s the convenience of analyzing the shutdown in retrospect; people can always say it just never got as bad as all the models predicted so it wasn’t necessary after all. 

[Gray Beard]

1 hour ago, BillsFan4 said:

For those now saying the lockdowns in the US were unnecessary:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/06/08/shutdowns-prevented-60-million-coronavirus-infections-us-study-finds/

“Shutdown prevented 60 million coronavirus infections, new study finds”.

 

2 different studies were published on the lockdowns in the US, UK, Europe and China.

 

1st one: the University of California at Berkeley researchers estimate stay at home orders, business closings and travel bans ended up preventing 285 million infections in China and 60 million cases in the US.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2404-8_reference.pdf

 

2nd one: researchers at Imperial College in London estimated shutdowns saved more than three million lives in 11 European countries and dropped infection rates by more than 80-percent.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2405-7

 

 

 

I think people should watch this video from back in March.  This doctor does an excellent job  Maybe it’s been posted already and I missed it.

 

”But if we do this right, nothing happens. Yeah. A successful shelter in place means that you're going to feel like it was all for nothing. And you'd be right. Because nothing means that nothing happened to your family. And that's what we're going for here.”

 

 

[K-9]

28 minutes ago, Gray Beard said:

 

I think people should watch this video from back in March.  This doctor does an excellent job  Maybe it’s been posted already and I missed it.

 

”But if we do this right, nothing happens. Yeah. A successful shelter in place means that you're going to feel like it was all for nothing. And you'd be right. Because nothing means that nothing happened to your family. And that's what we're going for here.”

 

 

As prescient as it can get. 

[plenzmd1]

16 hours ago, Bad Things said:

We just heard the great news that New Zealand no longer has any active cases of Covid-19.

There hasn't been any new cases in over 17 days and the last patient has recovered and was sent home.

 

what is going to be travel policy? 

4 hours ago, BillsFan4 said:

For those now saying the lockdowns in the US were unnecessary:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/06/08/shutdowns-prevented-60-million-coronavirus-infections-us-study-finds/

“Shutdown prevented 60 million coronavirus infections, new study finds”.

 

2 different studies were published on the lockdowns in the US, UK, Europe and China.

 

1st one: the University of California at Berkeley researchers estimate stay at home orders, business closings and travel bans ended up preventing 285 million infections in China and 60 million cases in the US.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2404-8_reference.pdf

 

2nd one: researchers at Imperial College in London estimated shutdowns saved more than three million lives in 11 European countries and dropped infection rates by more than 80-percent.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2405-7

 

 

Hmm..lots of fishy science in there..good thread on it here. 

 

 

I was all for  lockdowns when this thing hit..and believe they have had the desired impact. Curve was flattened 6 weeks ago though.

 

This from the WHO today is interesting as well...as this was a main facet of the lockdowns

 

Again, we learn and learn as this things moves on...maybe temp checks are valid...and you can bet your right testicle will be happeneng at sports events when fans are let in!

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/08/asymptomatic-coronavirus-patients-arent-spreading-new-infections-who-says.html?__source=sharebar|twitter&par=sharebar

 

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

4 hours ago, K-9 said:

Why am I not surprised? The logic seemed intuitive all along. Yet there are those that will still argue it was unnecessary, “Look at Sweden!” But that’s the convenience of analyzing the shutdown in retrospect; people can always say it just never got as bad as all the models predicted so it wasn’t necessary after all. 

 

I think when looking at Sweden, there are three things to keep in mind:

1) No national lockdown does not mean that no measures were taken.  Universities and HS were closed.  People were asked to work at home, avoid travel, and employ social distancing measures.  A number of measures that were imposed in the US, were done on a voluntary basis in Sweden (such as ski resorts closing over a popular holiday weekend)

2) Even so, Sweden has had a covid-19 death rate of almost 40 per 100,000 people as compared to its near neighbors which did lock down who have had a death rate of 6 per 100,000

3) The epidemiologist who directed Sweden's response, Anders Tegnell, now says Sweden should have done more and there is mounting internal criticism

[Bad Things]

25 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

what is going to be travel policy? 

 

 

Although just about everything is back to normal here, our borders will remain closed for obvious reasons.

One good thing is that sports are back on the menu again... with actual people watching in the stadiums!

[Hapless Bills Fan]

37 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

This from the WHO today is interesting as well...as this was a main facet of the lockdowns

 

Again, we learn and learn as this things moves on...maybe temp checks are valid...and you can bet your right testicle will be happeneng at sports events when fans are let in!

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/08/asymptomatic-coronavirus-patients-arent-spreading-new-infections-who-says.html?__source=sharebar|twitter&par=sharebar

 

I would like to see and understand the data to which Van Kerkhove is alluding which leads her to believe that asymptomatic or presymptomatic transmission are rare, because there are bunches of case studies of which I'm aware that speak to the contrary.

 

Now of course case studies are just that - they aren't the overall picture.  But when something has as far reaching an impact on public health strategy, I think we all ought to be seeing the data.

 

And here's the thing - so far I can find quotations of her remarks all over the freakin' place, I guess because the implications would be.  But I can't find one single solitary reference to the data upon which she based them.  I'm fairly good at data sleuthing, so that's not Good News.

Here's some science: patients tested at a Washington nursing home who were asymptomatic, presymptomatic, or symptomatic had similar levels of virus titre, in the presymptomatic people 1-6 days before they developed symptoms: Quantitative SARS-CoV-2 viral loads were similarly high in the four symptom groups (residents with typical symptoms, those with atypical symptoms, those who were presymptomatic, and those who remained asymptomatic). It is notable that 17 of 24 specimens (71%) from presymptomatic persons had viable virus by culture 1 to 6 days before the development of symptoms. 

If asymptomatic, presymptomatic, and symptomatic people have the same levels of viral titer, Why on earth would one believe all three groups would not transmit it?  It reminds me of early days of the AIDS epidemic, which emerged in the US initially as an infection of male homosexuals and blood-product users but had a different pattern of heterosexual spread in Africa. One could find straight-faced physicians and scientists who would insist that all the heterosexuals in Africa were totally back-dooring and the virus couldn't spread from PIV sex.  As one frustrated physician virologist said, throwing up his hands "What is Wrong with these People?  If a virus will spread from a penis to an anus, why wouldn't you believe it will spread from a penis to a *****?  They're lined with the same damned cells!"  And of course with time, he was proven right.  But I digress.

 

Back in mid-March, Van Kerkhove was telling us asymptomatic covid-19 infection was "very rare", how did that work out?  Now it turns out that maybe 40%, maybe more, of covid-19 infected people are asymptomatic.  Next up, mid-April, Van Kerkhove was telling us no evidence people with antibody tests are protected from re-infection - while technically true at the time, the implications were pretty widely critiqued - immunity may not last lifelong, this has been seen with other coronaviruses, but 1-2 years immunity is common.

I want to see the data.  Maybe she's right, that would be FANTASTIC news, actually.  But it's critical to how we approach the virus, Show Your Work!

 

[K-9]

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I think when looking at Sweden, there are three things to keep in mind:

1) No national lockdown does not mean that no measures were taken.  Universities and HS were closed.  People were asked to work at home, avoid travel, and employ social distancing measures.  A number of measures that were imposed in the US, were done on a voluntary basis in Sweden (such as ski resorts closing over a popular holiday weekend)

2) Even so, Sweden has had a covid-19 death rate of almost 40 per 100,000 people as compared to its near neighbors which did lock down who have had a death rate of 6 per 100,000

3) The epidemiologist who directed Sweden's response, Anders Tegnell, now says Sweden should have done more and there is mounting internal criticism

You know that, I know that, and most rational people know that. And yet, “But Sweden...” is a common refrain from those who’ve convinced themselves shutting down and brining the economy to a crawl was never a necessity. As if we can compare our response to an entire country with 8 million less people than the NYC metro area alone. 
 

That is a very telling number about their death rate. No wonder the internal criticism is growing. 

[Bad Things]

I don't understand why some of you are pointing to Sweden as being a success.

 

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/300027183/coronavirus-swedish-disease-expert-admits-covid19-mistakes?cid=app-android

[BringBackFergy]

Asymptomatic spread of coronavirus is 'very rare,' WHO says
 

Interesting. 
 

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/06/08/health/coronavirus-asymptomatic-spread-who-bn/index.html

Edited June 8, 2020 by BringBackFergy
Link

[Hapless Bills Fan]

5 hours ago, plenzmd1 said:

 

Hmm..lots of fishy science in there..good thread on it here. 

 

 

 

When you have a former NYT reporter who has written a book on finance filings and 3 thrillers referring to a publication from Imperial College, UK and one of their professers as a "joke", that might be a clue that the Dunnings-Krueger is strong in the vicinity

 

Not that a layperson can't educate themselves and have meaningful critique of a scientific study - they can

Not that professors at Imperial College who publish in Nature can't be mistaken - they can

 

But when you refer to just the presence of one as a coauthor as "dispositive" and the paper is a "joke", I think that's ......dispositive

 

I don't have energy to dig into the science myself right now, sorry - but a bunch of the things he leads off poking at are not what he says they are

[plenzmd1]

12 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

When you have a former NYT reporter who has written a book on finance filings and 3 thrillers referring to a publication from Imperial College, UK and one of their professers as a "joke", that might be a clue that the Dunnings-Krueger is strong in the vicinity

 

Not that a layperson can't educate themselves and have meaningful critique of a scientific study - they can

Not that professors at Imperial College who publish in Nature can't be mistaken - they can

 

But when you refer to just the presence of one as a coauthor as "dispositive" and the paper is a "joke", I think that's ......dispositive

 

I don't have energy to dig into the science myself right now, sorry - but a bunch of the things he leads off poking at are not what he says they are

i will refrain from making this political, but he has been right, and not wavered, unlike the "experts". 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 minute ago, plenzmd1 said:

i will refrain from making this political, but he has been right, and not wavered, unlike the "experts". 

 

Educate: What has he been right about where experts have been wrong? 

The paper he is critiquing is a model.  That's what Imperial College is known for.

 

I've said this before: models are based on assumptions.  If the assumptions are wrong, then the models will be wrong.

 

I don't mean to diss it off by saying I don't have energy to dig into the Nature paper myself (or his assessment, which I caught as off on a couple points right off the bat). 

 

I'm digging hard to try to find the actual data on which American epidemiologist Maria Van Kerkhove (based at WHO) has made her statements about asymptomatic spread being rare, masks only necessary in the presence of symptomatic people etc.

 

So far I'm coming up bupkis.

[spartacus]

On 6/5/2020 at 9:07 PM, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

  Hydroxychloroquine works in test tubes!   lots of things work in test tubes.

 

 

 

 

https://med.umn.edu/news-events/university-minnesota-trial-shows-hydroxychloroquine-has-no-benefit-over-placebo-preventing-covid-19

University of Minnesota Trial Shows Hydroxychloroquine Has No Benefit Over Placebo in Preventing COVID-19

Author: Kelly Glynn, Media Relations Coordinator | June 3, 2020

 

looks like another nail in the coffin 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

[plenzmd1]

Just now, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Educate: What has he been right about where experts have been wrong? 

Berenson right

 

1) Virus hits folks with age and comorbidities much harder that the general popultion.

2) Morbidity rates amogst those without high risk factors is not greater than other viruses

3) it was an absolute mistake to force nursing homes to intake  people that were still positive 

4) No need to close schools, proven to not hit young people at any kind of rate that justifies all the negative affect that clsoing schoolls has caused.

 

Experts

 

!) No need to worry, this is not an issue

2) Come party in Chinatown, show your suppprt agasint racism

3) masks are ony for the sick, there is not proven science that masks help suppress transmisson of the virus

4) Asympatamatic people are super spreaders, 

5)do you need more?

[Hapless Bills Fan]

9 minutes ago, spartacus said:

 

https://med.umn.edu/news-events/university-minnesota-trial-shows-hydroxychloroquine-has-no-benefit-over-placebo-preventing-covid-19

University of Minnesota Trial Shows Hydroxychloroquine Has No Benefit Over Placebo in Preventing COVID-19

Author: Kelly Glynn, Media Relations Coordinator | June 3, 2020

 

looks like another nail in the coffin

 

Dammit.  I had high hopes...something that could clear prevent infection in exposed vulnerable people would be SUCH a boon

[Hapless Bills Fan]

5 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

Berenson right

 

1) Virus hits folks with age and comorbidities much harder that the general popultion.

2) Morbidity rates amogst those without high risk factors is not greater than other viruses

3) it was an absolute mistake to force nursing homes to intake  people that were still positive 

4) No need to close schools, proven to not hit young people at any kind of rate that justifies all the negative affect that clsoing schoolls has caused.

 

Experts

 

!) No need to worry, this is not an issue

2) Come party in Chinatown, show your suppprt agasint racism

3) masks are ony for the sick, there is not proven science that masks help suppress transmisson of the virus

4) Asympatamatic people are super spreaders, 

5)do you need more?

 

No, I do not need more of that because it's pretty much baloney, Plenzmid.  And some of this we've discussed before, with references and stuff, which might mean you're in the boat of dissing off experts "because".

 

Your Berenson list:

1) Nope, not something he got right that experts got wrong.  Experts knew that covid-19 kills primarily older people and people with comorbidities from the start of the epidemic.  The WHO-China joint report released 28 Feb lays it all out.  The points that people with an agenda "therefore this means we need not shut down the country" gloss over is that a) a significant number of younger people (20-49) who contract covid-19 also become severely ill, require prolonged hospital care, and suffer damage that may take months to recover (lung damage, damage from clots) - the hospitals were slammed b) The comorbidities in question are present in a LARGE number of people in the US, including younger people - obesity, high blood pressure, heart disease, diabetes.  (42% obese, 46% high blood pressure, 13% diabetes, 6.7% of those 20 or older have heart disease)

So No, this is not something Berenson got right that experts got wrong.  NFW.

 

2) We've discussed that before and it's quite simply not a FACT at this point what the morbidity rates are by ages.  There simply hasn't been enough time to sort that.  Every clinician I know who is treating patients says they are seeing a lot of healthy, young people walk into hospital.  Now most of them recover, but it's serious for them.  As for As for "people without risk factors", keep in mind that almost HALF the US population has relevant risk factors (again: 42% obese, 46% high blood pressure, 13% diabetes, 6.7% heart disease and no it's not all the same people)  Woo hoo let's dismiss the seriousness of a disease that might seriously impact half of us.  No, can't pass that as "right", sorry.

3) I will grant you and him that in full: It was a mistake to force nursing homes to readmit covid-19 patients that were still positive. True.  It was also a mistake to have covid-19 infected people who were not critically ill, quarantine at home where they inevitably infected family members, sometimes vulnerable people who then became critically ill or died. 
I don't think there were any infectious disease experts or epidemiologist who thought that was a good idea.  It was done because NY and NJ were desperate to preserve hospital capacity.  It's tragic; at the end there were overflow hospitals that wound up being unused, but they weren't available to covid-19 patients (or willing to do long-term-care?) when needed.  Many of those nursing homes had covid-19 in the facility before those positive people were returned to them, either via an infected caregiver or a patient who was hospitalized and discharged before covid-19 testing was sufficiently widespread to know they were positive.  Still a mistake to bring more infected people in.

4) Schools are traditionally disease amplifiers, even of diseases that aren't severe in young children.  The point of closing schools is that young people may contract the disease and spread it to adults who may be more vulnerable.  The role of children in transmission of covid-19 is still unclear because they are typically asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic.  The transmission risk seems small, but there are now some very scary apparent complications of covid-19 showing up in children - MIS-C.  I'm glad you know Berenson can tell us for sure we wouldn't be seeing more MIS-C if the schools had remained open.

 

Your "Experts" column:

1) False.  The CDC epidemiology experts behind the scenes in January-February were BEGGING people to take the disease seriously. 
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/07/donald-trump-coronavirus-memos-warning-peter-navarro
https://khn.org/news/red-dawn-breaking-bad-officials-warned-about-safety-gear-shortfall-early-on-emails-show/
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/11/us/politics/coronavirus-red-dawn-emails-trump.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/11/us/politics/coronavirus-trump-response.html
 

2) That wasn't an expert saying "Party in Chinatown", that was Bill DiBlasio (unless you think he's an expert)

Again - his EIS-trained public health doctors were tearing their hair out, begging him to shut down the show. Show me the expert.  Who was the expert who said that?
"Show your support against Racism" - Fauci has clearly said he considers the BLM protests a "perfect setup" for further spread of Covid-19 (I linked several articles quoting him elsewhere - I'll go back and find it but if you search my content you'll find it.
 

3) The initial CDC advice to not wear masks was based viewing masks as a means to effectively prevent infection, something only respirator-type masks (N95) do, and early information from the Chinese epidemic (few asymptomatic people, droplet transmission) that suggested the best strategy was "wash hands to remove droplets, don't touch face, stay home if you feel ill".  When new information arose (aerosol transmission may be occurring, many people are infectious while they don't have symptoms, countries with high mask wearing are doing much better at shutting this down) the CDC started looking at masks from the other side - preventing TRANSMISSION - and changed advice according to new information.  That's actually one way to tell the difference between a scientific expert and someone pushing dogma - the scientific expert will look at new data and say "OK, based on this, we were incorrect before, and we need to change"
 

4) I'd like to see the source of an expert claim that asymptomatic people are "superspreaders".  I haven't ever seen that.
 

Several "superspreading" events have been catalyzed by people who were mildly ill with respiratory symptoms similar to a mild cold or seasonal allergies: the Skagit County Chorus; fever: a woman attending the Sheonji church in S Korea who infected at least 3 dozen people, 

The question currently is, what data is there, or is there not, about the potential of asymptomatic (or presymptomatic) people to spread the disease?  There are several case studies pretty clearly showing asymptomatic transmission

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32083643/?from_term=covid-19+asymptomatic&from_pos=1

or presymtomatic (asymptomatic at the time) transmission in Singapore dormitories

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6914e1.htm

 

The most aligned thing I can find is people saying "this needs more study".  Dr. Isaac Bogoch and Dr. Allan Detsky of the University of Toronto previously pointing out the misuse of the term "asymptomatic" when referring to "presymptomatic" patients.  Dr. Ashish K. Jha, director at the Harvard Global Health Institute, tweeted out the distinction and noted that the agency "should be clearer in communication, also noting that some models "suggest 40-60% of spread is from people when they didn't have symptoms."
 

I just want to see the data.

 

[plenzmd1]

Her is my point @Hapless Bills Fan, the messanging from "experts"..be they CDC, Fauci, WHO, Imperial College et al..the folks who are quoated most often have evolved like this

 

No need to be concerned about this...to epic pandemic

No need for masks... to masks are mandatory

Spreads on surfaces... to little evidence of contact spreading

Close all schools down...little evidence children spread the virus

So dangerous based on asymptomatic spread..to little evidence that is the case

 

Now there can be clear reasons for all of those changes..

 

but these major themes have all switched over time, public decisions that affect millions upon millions upon millions are based on them, and our fundamental way of life has been altered, maybe permanetly. 

 

Count me crazy if i think the " experts" will continue to make changes and revisions to things we "must do today"..that will than change in a few months time

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[spartacus]

10 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Dammit.  I had high hopes...something that could clear prevent infection in exposed vulnerable people would be SUCH a boon

well, you are in luck then.

https://med.umn.edu/news-events/university-minnesota-trial-shows-hydroxychloroquine-has-no-benefit-over-placebo-preventing-covid-19

fortunately, the UM study did nothing to "prove" the lack of a viable covid treatment.

Studies on SARS and others, back when medicine was actually looking for treatments, clearly show that zinc severely limits the replication of a virus. 

To be effective, however, zinc needs a transport assist to cross into a cell to fight the virus.

  Hydroxychloroquine is one of the items that zinc can use as a transport vehicle. 

 

you would think a better study might want to measure how effective zinc stops the covid virus.

The MN study only evaluates the transport vehicle- not for its effectiveness in transporting zinc - but to cure the disease -= which seems to be a pretty badly designed study.

 

It would be like doing a study to evaluate the success rate of heart surgeons doing heart transplants.

The MN study designed their test to study the taxi cab that transported the surgeon to the hospital and concluded that taxi's did not improve the transplant success rate.

Somehow their study failed to address the efficiency of the surgeon (zinc) that was actually the active element in the success of the procedure.   

 

 

 

 

Edited June 9, 2020 by spartacus

[BillsFan4]

On 6/7/2020 at 2:10 PM, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Positive things about the protests:

-they take place out-of-doors, where ventilation is typically excellent and UV exposure from sunlight may have an impact in reducing viral titer

-in news coverage I have seen, many people are wearing masks or other facial coverage, at least over their mouths

-people may not be spending huge amounts of time with the exact same people in the exact same configuration as when seated or kneeling at a religious service or in a restaurant, or standing at assigned stations in a meat packing plant.  BUT, I have never participated in an actual protest demonstration so I don't know.

-It appears a large majority of the protestors are relatively young, HS or college age or in their 20s-30s so they may be less likely to overwhelm the hospital system themselves

 

Negative things about the protests:

-No one knows the effect of inhaling crowd-control chemicals on covid-19 susceptibility

-Likewise of just the stress of being in a crowd for hours, not to mention some people being beaten

-Certainly being detained and incarcerated would place people in a high-risk situation for covid-19 spread with hours of close contact in vehicles or cells with limited ventilation

-Because they are young, protestors who do develop covid-19 may become asymptomatic or presymptomatic spreaders (it seems young healthy people may take 14 days to show symptoms), thus they may be more likely to spread the disease unwittingly to older relatives, mentors, and friends if they don't observe social distancing outside the protests

 

At a guess, in each city where there are protests, it's probably going to take 4-8 weeks to see whether or not there will be a protest-induced spike.  I can try to run through the math behind that guess if anyone is interested

 

 

Yes, I am. Thanks. 

[BillsFan4]

https://www.axios.com/who-asymptomatic-coronavirus-69c56ce3-41e0-4ea7-ab2a-de866713b4cf.html

Quote

The World Health Organization clarified comments an official made on Monday that called asymptomatic transmission of the coronavirus "very rare," saying in a press conference that these carriers do take part in spreading the virus but that more information is needed to know by how much.

 

What they're saying: WHO official Marisa Van Kerkhove clarified Tuesday that patients sometimes confuse not having any symptoms with only exhibiting mild symptoms. In addition, some patients transmit the virus before developing symptoms. Contact tracers classify this group as "presymptomatic," rather than asymptomatic.

 

Quote

• Van Kerkhov said the WHO estimates 16% of people are asymptomatic and can transmit the virus. Some models suggest up to 40% of coronavirus transmission might be due to asymptomatic spread, she added, but much more information is needed.
• Van Kerkhove stressed that her comments on Monday were specific to particular studies and did not represent a new policy or direction. The WHO said it regrets saying that asymptomatic spread is "very rare."

 

Edited June 9, 2020 by BillsFan4

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Best source material I could find.
 https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-1595_article

Key points:

 

Article summarizes epidemiological evidence, virological evidence, and modeling. 

Key points:

-There are a number of case studies which strongly imply that virus transmission from people without symptoms at the time is occurring.

-Titer measurements of people without symptoms at the time overlap titer measurements of people with symptoms (if you have as high viral titer in your upper respiratory system as someone with symptoms, what magic would render you unable to spread virus?)
-Modeling (which of course depends upon assumptions) of different situations: "Although models are highly dependent on the assumptions built into them, these models suggest that the speed and extent of SARS-CoV-2 transmission cannot be accounted for solely by transmission from symptomatic persons"

Conclusion:

"Each of the epidemiologic, virologic, and modeling studies described has limitations. However, in the aggregate, these diverse studies suggest that SARS-CoV-2 can be transmitted by persons with presymptomatic or asymptomatic infection, which may meaningfully contribute to the propagation of the COVID-19 pandemic."