2019-nCoV / Corona virus Pt 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think there is good reason to believe that there may not be enough ventilators to handle the virus, but I don't understand how that could be happening now.

In the US there are maybe 300,000 hospitalizations per year for the flu.We are winding down flu season.

There have only been about 8,000 COVID-19 case in the US so far. Only a fraction have been hospitalized, let alone put on a ventilator. I can't see how
this can possibly be true.

Hospitalization does not automatically mean ICU or ventilation. And with COVID-19 there is higher percentage of cases needing intensive care. Also those 300k per year are spread all over the country, while COVID-19 at the moment is still more like few clusters. That way it can easily happen that one area is overloaded. Flu season also lasts several months.
 
Is it still the wisdom that wearing painters masks is more likely to get you infected than not wearing one? because all the countries that seem to be winning this are wearing them. Im seeing article after article of MSM saying they increase your risk

And on the other side, for sure dont they help to keep the infected from spreading?

My understanding is that you wear them to protect those around you from yourself. If you cough or sneeze the droplets won't go 6 meters but a much shorter distance. So if everybody wears them fewer gets infected. They may also help you a little by stopping you from putting those grubby fingers of yours in your mouth or nose.
 
This sounds like one of those just so stories. I wonder why the WHO guys are wearing them

Not sure if this is a good source and it does say "opinion" but it has lots of links

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/17/...HWZ0tELqysy7bNSah0OolwIGMc7RAPphyKdh8_C86R-ko
If you want to wear a mask, go ahead. I explained the logic of why it was not advised that asymptomatic people wear them and why it's been said they may hurt rather than help, but I'm not aware of any studies proving it.

Health officials are also concerned about shortages of protective devices for health care workers, which is reason enough for me not to use a mask or encourage others to do so unless they're symptomatic.
 
Last edited:
If you want to wear a mask, go ahead. I explained the logic of why it was not advised that asymptomatic people wear them and why it's been said they may hurt rather than help, but I'm not aware of any studies proving it.

Health officials are also concerned about shortages of protective devices for health care workers, which is enough for me not to use a mask or encourage others to do so unless they're symptomatic.

There's something I don't understand in your response.

Why should symptomatic people wear masks? They're already sick, so there's no protection for themselves.

if it's to protect others, then I have to conclude the masks offer some protection to others, and since there is no way to know if you have the virus in the pre-symptomatic phase, but you could be contagious, then everyone ought to wear masks.

Of course, that's impossible, because we don't have masks available, but if one were available, it should be worn.

I won't be wearing one for the same reason, i.e. save them for the health care workers, but it's a darned shame that that's the reason for not wearing one.
 
There's something I don't understand in your response.

Why should symptomatic people wear masks? They're already sick, so there's no protection for themselves.

if it's to protect others, then I have to conclude the masks offer some protection to others, and since there is no way to know if you have the virus in the pre-symptomatic phase, but you could be contagious, then everyone ought to wear masks.
1. As I said, they can tell others to stay away.
2. They provide some limited protection in that they slow the larger droplets.
3. No, they don't stop the release of virus particles. Thus, if you walk behind someone symptomatic who coughs or sneezes, you will breathe in the virus. It may be a lower concentration secondary to the mask, maybe even low enough that you won't be infected, but, again, the mask (unless it is of the correct type) has not prevented virus release.

Stay. Home. As. Much. As. Possible.
 
But read post 2022. ""Italy has now 2003 "Covid-19 positive" deaths"". I suspect their first batch of mass testing was done in convalescent homes. And subsequently hospice patients died WITH covid, not OF covid. Which would make the epidemic look worse than it is.

I wonder if the same water muddying is happening elsewhere? "covid postive deaths" vs "deaths caused by covid"? It's one of those problems caused by excess testing. Like HIV tests with higher false positives than the rate in the general population... Sniffles, sore throat, get the test...positive.. get hit by a bus... Covid death!

The key to this is surely the overwhelming of the healthcare system. That tells us that we are not talking about common or garden deaths, surely? And getting hit by a bus DOES become more serious if the emergency rooms are full.
 
1. As I said, they can tell others to stay away.
2. They provide some limited protection in that they slow the larger droplets.
3. No, they don't stop the release of virus particles. Thus, if you walk behind someone symptomatic who coughs or sneezes, you will breathe in the virus. It may be a lower concentration secondary to the mask, maybe even low enough that you won't be infected, but, again, the mask (unless it is of the correct type) has not prevented virus release.

Stay. Home. As. Much. As. Possible.

Ok. Makes sense.

Especially that last part. I haven't been in contact with humans since Tuesday morning. My wife has had some contact, and I've contacted her.

But I think I or some member of my family needs to go grocery shopping on Friday.

I find myself wondering when the safest day to go would be. The longer I wait, the more infected people are likely to be out there.
 
I'm in a different room than a coughing sneezer. We don't share an A/C but how dangerous is this? Feels like a petri dish
 
From Bloomberg. It's paywalled after 3 articles per month so I'll quote as much as I can:

Early Coronavirus Drug Trials Yield Mixed Results
The combination of lopinavir and ritonavir, marketed by AbbVie Inc. as Kaletra, didn’t improve the condition of Covid-19 patients or prevent them from dying more than standard care in a randomized, controlled trial of 199 patients. The research was published Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine.

A separate study of 80 patients receiving Fujifilm’s favipiravir, or Avigan, found it helped clear the virus from patients a week earlier than the HIV medicine and was associated with improved chest symptoms shown on CT scans.

The favipiravir study, which wasn’t randomized, was conducted in a different group of patients and at a later time point when doctors might have discovered better ways to care for patients, Evercore ISI analyst Umer Raffat said in a note.

The clincial research on favipiravir augers well for another anti-viral, Gilead Sciences Inc.’s experimental drug remdesivir, which is also undergoing clinical trials in China, Tyler Van Buren, an analyst with Piper Sandler said. Results of the remdesivir study are yet to be published.

“If successful, it could be approved for broad use in the coming months considering it’s safe, the bar for efficacy in the context of the ongoing global pandemic is low,” he said.


But you can also read one of the studies here:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2001282?query=featured_home

Conclusions
In hospitalized adult patients with severe Covid-19, no benefit was observed with lopinavir–ritonavir treatment beyond standard care.

It's kind of hard to keep all this drug names straight. They don't exactly roll of the tongue, do they? Note that they all end in "-avir" which I assume indicates "antiviral".

It's important to notice the difference between these trials, though. The one that found no benefit was a controlled, randomized trial, where half the patients got placebo. The one that seemed to show a benefit wasn't controlled, so who knows what that really means.
 
Cool, cool. I'd love a consistently effective treatment, obviously. I'd just hate for it to make anyone complacent.

Well, it's not consistently effective, but one trial suggests that Fujifilm has an anti-influenza drug, favipiravir, that might be helpful: https://www.bloombergquint.com/busi...-drug-trials-yield-mixed-results-studies-show

Those drugs are pretty easy to manufacture.

Remdesivir and others due in about two weeks.

Whatever lockdown means, NZ is doing it tomorrow I am reliably informed.

ETA. Fake news

Beaten the gun by a couple of days, I'd say.

"Still no community spread." What a load of cobblers - they haven't been testing anyone who hasn't travelled so they won't know until it hits the hospitals.

That's pretty bad. Things seem to be getting worse. Not better.

That's how epidemics work and why we need to take action to halt this one.

I'm most disturbed about SK, which has been uber-vigilant, but still had a rogue outbreak spark up.

I'm in a different room than a coughing sneezer. We don't share an A/C but how dangerous is this? Feels like a petri dish

Easy, just don't breathe in!
 
This thread is not for discussing politics. Don't derail it. This is a thread for discussion on the disease.
It overlapped, not being prepared is part of the disease discussion.

Like this for example:
Two members of congress have tested positive for the coronavirus.

When there are cases spreading out from Mar-a-lago, those can probably go in either thread too.
 
Last edited:
China reports no new domestic cases today.

That makes 1 in the course of two days.

This sucker can be beaten, but it's going to be hard work and require all countries to work together and vigilantly.

Someone say "India"?
 
1. As I said, they can tell others to stay away.
2. They provide some limited protection in that they slow the larger droplets.
3. No, they don't stop the release of virus particles. Thus, if you walk behind someone symptomatic who coughs or sneezes, you will breathe in the virus. It may be a lower concentration secondary to the mask, maybe even low enough that you won't be infected, but, again, the mask (unless it is of the correct type) has not prevented virus release.

Stay. Home. As. Much. As. Possible.

Although it is true that the virus is small enough to go through most medical masks on its own (the blue/green/white kind we wear in HK and Asia) when its sneezed or coughed out it is not floating around in the air, but in droplet form, and those DO get stopped by the waterproofed and outer layers of the masks. Not completely, but way, way, way better than nothing.

Most importantly asymptomatic people who are wearing masks reduce their transmission to others, and of course uninfected wearing masks vastly decrease their chances of getting it.

So if masks are available in a country they should be worn; the problem is that it is only really prevalent in some Asian countries. Even before SARS in Hong Kong it was common to wear a mask if YOU yourself had a cold or were sick, as a courtesy to others. Never seen that in the UK or Europe, and hence masks are not commonly available in pharmacies to the general public outside of the nations that have a supply chain.

Even here in Hong Kong we have supply issues, as in a population of 7 million, we need 7 million masks a day, which is not really sustainable, so social distancing and working from home, closing schools, staying inside, cancelling Rugby 7s etc is the other important part, which we have been doing since early February.

On another note, China claims to have first day of 0 domestic cases since the outbreak, but I frankly don't believe a word of it. Heard from friends over there than government officials have been told not to report any increase in cases at all, only drops in numbers. Having started this mess, and lied from the beginning, China is now desperate to appear back to normal and get the economy going again as soon as possible, even if it means covering up ongoing cases. Its entirely possible they will have a 2nd wave of outbreaks as people leave lockdown areas and start to go back to work.

China has started legislation to ban wildlife markets, and the wildlife market lobby is understandably unhappy, but looks like it will happen. They should have done it after SARS but were complacent, and its come back to bite them.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom