2019-nCoV / Corona virus Pt 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
RecoveringYuppy said:
ITU similar to ICU. Intensive Therapy, Intensive Treatment.
Click to expand...

Thanks! Planigale's suggestion that ITUs/ICUs may not help the overall survival rate of people with life threatening respiratory infections is... intriguing. If they don't help it is amazing that so many doctors, (and insurance companies!) believe so.
 
Giordano said:
I am beginning to feel like an advertiser for the NY Times, but here is the link again:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...l?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

Check out the total number of deaths. One reason for the reduction in deaths is that the heath care system can much better keep up with the lower rate of infection. You have posted as much but you haven't appeared to recognize the importance of this on the death rate.

To quote the article: "What matters is not only the total number of infections but also whether many occur at once. Overloaded hospitals and shortages of ventilators in intensive care units would result in people dying unnecessarily from the coronavirus as well as from heart attacks and other ailments."

What do you mean by ITU?

Further it provides for much more opportunities to identify and isolate specifically the infected individuals. To the point where further transmission can be substantially reduced in a given community.
Click to expand...

To your last point; unless a vaccine comes into play then transmission is slowed but at the end of the epidemic the same number will have been infected. Probably with much the same outcome.

ITU = ICU. Intensive therapy unit indicating in the UK at least more happens than just care. Yes slowing the infection is important. But the modelling shows if you slow it too much by a lock down over summer the epidemic explodes when you release the lock down but peaking in winter which is worse. So you need to slow it enough to protect the health care system, but not too much. I accept that delay may have other benefits e.g. increased testing facilities, new point of care tests, time to ramp up ITU beds etc.

I cannot access the NYT article it appears to behind a paywall from europe.
 
Giordano said:
Thanks! Planigale's suggestion that ITUs/ICUs may not help the overall survival rate of people with life threatening respiratory infections is... intriguing. If they don't help it is amazing that so many doctors, (and insurance companies!) believe so.
Click to expand...

I meant exclusively for Covid 19. Much of ITU is taken up with post surgical and trauma patients. Relatively few patients with primary lung failure go to ITU. It appears that many of those with Covid 19 who die do so despite ITU.

32 patients required invasive mechanical ventilation, of whom 31 (97%) died.
Click to expand...
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30566-3/fulltext

So (nearly) all those who had illness severe enough to need ventilation died. ITU in terms of ventilatory support offered no (little) benefit. Care below the level of ventilation can be delivered in non-ITU areas.
 
Last edited:
Planigale said:
From the same WHO document I referenced above suggesting children are not significant spreaders of SARS CoV 2.

So this is supported by WHO. Feel free to contact them and tell them they are publishing crap.
Click to expand...

First, once again, researchers' conclusions still differ and the WHO information is not consistent with Johns Hopkins, just as one example.

Second, do you know the difference between mild and asymptomatic? Because this is what you said:
The UK is modelling 80% infected, 20% infected symptomatic,
Click to expand...
That is not what your WHO link says at all. Go re-read it. You are calling mild symptoms no symptoms.

WHO China joint report
Routes of transmission
COVID-19 is transmitted via droplets and fomites during close unprotected contact between
an infector and infectee. Airborne spread has not been reported for COVID-19 and it is not
believed to be a major driver of transmission based on available evidence; however, it can be envisaged if certain aerosol-generating procedures are conducted in health care facilities.
Click to expand...
If you cough you generate aerosols.

And there's research out of China that claimed no one was asymptomatic, they all developed symptoms eventually.
Most people infected with COVID-19 virus have mild disease and recover. Approximately
80% of laboratory confirmed patients have had mild to moderate disease, which includes
non-pneumonia and pneumonia cases, ....

Asymptomatic infection
has been reported, but the majority of the relatively rare cases who are asymptomatic on
the date of identification/report went on to develop disease. The proportion of truly
asymptomatic infections is unclear but appears to be relatively rare and does not appear to
be a major driver of transmission.
Click to expand...
A lot of findings in this joint statement are too early to tell and not confirmed with repeat studies.

For example the statement not many kids are being infected lacks serology studies.

And the assertion the main driver of transmission being in households is contradicted by the speed the virus spread worldwide.


All open source papers:
https://www.elsevier.com/connect/coronavirus-information-center
 
Last edited:
Giordano said:
There are many different agencies and companies that even now make lots of different vaccines. Large amounts of influenza virus are synthesized every year. And as you point out production of influenza vaccine is already in process for next winter, whereas any coronavirus vaccine will not even be available for big scale production until after that. There is no suggestion that the vaccine production capacity will be limited to one or the other or that the basic research arms of these resources will be "distracted." In fact they undoubtedly realize the importance of having vaccines to both and appear to be working on just that.

Sure the effectiveness of influenza vaccine varies with the year but if most people are vaccinated even less than fully effective vaccines can break the transmission cycle and result in much lower numbers of infections.
Click to expand...

This year there were problems with flu vaccine supply, there is no guarantee that if the world decided to go for universal vaccination there would be sufficient vaccine manufacturing capacity.
 
Could it be the strategy used may vary based on the desired outcome, demographics, health care system and many other factors such that what is a reasonable approach for the UK might be unreasonable for a country such as the US with different conditions such as a poorly coordinated healthcare system and an idiot at the helm?

Or in other words, I doubt one-size-fits-all is appropriate and be nicer to Planigale!

:)
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
First, once again, researchers' conclusions still differ and the WHO information is not consistent with Johns Hopkins, just as one example.

Second, do you know the difference between mild and asymptomatic? Because this is what you said: That is not what your WHO link says at all. Go re-read it. You are calling mild symptoms no symptoms.

WHO China joint report
If you cough you generate aerosols.

And there's research out of China that claimed no one was asymptomatic, they all developed symptoms eventually.A lot of findings in this joint statement are too early to tell and not confirmed with repeat studies.

For example the statement not many kids are being infected lacks serology studies.

And the assertion the main driver of transmission being in households is contradicted by the speed the virus spread worldwide.


All open source papers:
https://www.elsevier.com/connect/coronavirus-information-center
Click to expand...

Clearly there are a variety of opinions, and evidence is accruing. However what I have posted has support from expert opinion. John Hopkins may differ from WHO. Cough may generate aerosols, but WHO opine SARS CoV 2 is droplet transmitted not aerosol transmitted in normal person to person contacts. Who opines children are more likely to be infected by adults than vice versa. Things may change but it is inappropriate to say that my post is unsupportable crap when this is what WHO are saying.
 
pipelineaudio said:
Craptastic. They wiped out the hydrogen peroxide
Click to expand...

Methylated spirits? That certainly kills the virus and you might find some at a petrol station.

Another thing to try is toilet cleaner - the "squirt under the rim" stuff. It has the same hypochloritic acid as chlorine bleach, but with a gel to make it sticky. Check the concentration & dilute as necessary.

Other than that, if you're treating the metal parts, just put them in boiling water. 70 deg C is the upper survival limit for coronaviruses.

Ivor the Engineer said:
Could it be the strategy used may vary based on the desired outcome, demographics, health care system and many other factors such that what is a reasonable approach for the UK might be unreasonable for a country such as the US with different conditions such as a poorly coordinated healthcare system and an idiot at the helm?
Click to expand...

Trouble is, while UK's health system might be quite robust, I've seen the calls every winter for more capacity because they can't cope every 'flu season.

There is no way any country can cope with Covid-19 running unchecked, because the case load will be 10 or more higher.
 
dann said:
Does it sound likely that this remedy will be effective against the new coronavirus?
Click to expand...

At this time, it would certainly be worth a look:

Safe to use
Effective against many other viruses

I'd be game to try it if infected.

I'm sure it will be one of the drugs China has under double-blind trial at the moment, so we'll have a good idea within the next few weeks.

It might raise an issue for USA (not that I'd care) in that being Cuban, Trump would need to back off his anti-Cuba stance.
 
theprestige said:
Turns out it's not actually ridiculous to have an osteopath physician.

And it turns out dudalb doesn't actually have a source for his claim of woo belief.
Click to expand...

I'd say the relevant Osteopathic orgs' sites would be source enough

https://www.academyofosteopathy.org/

[IMGw=600]https://i.imgur.com/mBZ0JtH.png[/IMGw]



Edited by Loss Leader: 
Picture edited for readability. Please use the IMGW tag. For the above, I set it to [imgw=600]image.png[/imgw].The largest value for smooth functioning of the forum is 600.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Planigale said:
Clearly there are a variety of opinions, and evidence is accruing. However what I have posted has support from expert opinion. John Hopkins may differ from WHO. Cough may generate aerosols, but WHO opine SARS CoV 2 is droplet transmitted not aerosol transmitted in normal person to person contacts. Who opines children are more likely to be infected by adults than vice versa. Things may change but it is inappropriate to say that my post is unsupportable crap when this is what WHO are saying.
Click to expand...
You ignored the fact you called mild symptoms, 'no symptoms'.

We don't have enough data to draw conclusions about the role children pose as spreaders.

Aerosols have been documented with other coronaviruses so again, WHO or not, you can't draw conclusions from insufficient evidence.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom