Cont: 2019-nCoV / Corona virus Pt 3

[Andy_Ross]

708 deaths in the UK yesterday

 

[Capsid]

Re: the territorial variants in rates: Dietary differences? It takes a fatty acid to make the virus particle. Which one? Can a deficiency prevent the multiplication of the virus? Or high or low fatty acid transporter mechanisms? IIRC, fructose is needed to build membranes, or is that monounsturated fatty acids?

Then anti-viral wise, there are other solvents than alcohol and detergents. Something else ought to work on virus skins. Acetone (fingernail polish remover) paint thinner, even other oils. Cooking oils or hand lotions might be anti-viral. Remember that hand sanitizers are expected to kill a broad selection of germs, but it is possible that some other every day solution works strictly as an anti-viral. Motor oils dissolve gunky grease. So does baby oil. Or kerosene. Or Choline solutions?

The virus forms inside a cell and buds from the endoplasmic reticulum (ER). Your cells would be pretty messed up if it didn't have the ER.

 

[Dr.Sid]

By affected do you mean " infected " ?

That age group would seem to be the most socially active.

It's also usually the most numerous group, so that's to be expected. You must compare how exactly does the 'infected' age histogram compare to 'all' age histogram.

 

[JeanTate]

How likely are you to get covid-19 from a bleeding paper cut on your finger, say, or shooting up with a dirty needle (this is how some intravenous drug addicts get AIDS/HIV, hepatitis, etc)?

 

[Trebuchet]

In an article I can't find right now, it's said that the virus is hitting harder among younger people in the south due to poverty and lifestyle; the latter including smoking and obesity.

 

[xjx388]

So sorry to hear. Vegas seemed like a good infection point but didn't have many cases. It is growing though and I think some data is just delayed.
I had my first 'person I know' test positive yesterday. He is a parent at my daughters school and also a police officer.

The human mind takes more serious what is personal. It's getting personal for many more people!

I mentioned earlier that the first confirmed case in my county was an employee’s sister. They had gone to Vegas in the first week of March. The employee later tested positive as well. I would wager Vegas was a huge vector, that is pretty unrecognized.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

How's this: I'll bet you that by Jan 1st 2021, the total number of deaths attributed to Covid19 in the USA by John's Hopkins on this website: https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html will be greater than 75,000.

That 75,000 is based on your high estimate of how many deaths might occur, plus a bit. But I'd be willing to consider other terms.

As for stakes, people around here often do avatar bets, but I'd be willing to consider other stakes as well.

Make it 85k US deaths attributed to Covid-19 by Jan 1, 2021, and you have a deal.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

U.S. approaching 300,000 cases, 25% of all cases.

Pre-emptive: we under-report, too. We just do it by making getting tested nearly impossible until it's too late.

 

[William Parcher]

Claims of china ordering hundreds of thousands of body bags from taiwan. Is China in Focus a reputable source?

China can make its own body bags. They certainly have workers standing around with their hands in their pockets.

 

[Scopedog]

You can tell something about whether there is enough testing by looking at the percentage of tests that return a "hit". For example Norway has a 5% success rate in this regard. (102k tested, 5200 found positive.) But people are only being tested if there is some reason to think that they may be positive, so the real proportion of the population that is infected is likely lower then 5%.

Let's make a thought-experiment and create two mini-countries. Both countries have a population of 1000 people, of which 100 are infected. Of these 100 cases 20 will become ill enough to experience symptoms, five of those will become ill enough that they must go to a hospital, and one will die.

Country A does extensive testing and find the 20 with symptoms (because they report sick) plus 30 more who had contact with the 20. Their NHS has enough capacity to put five more in hospital than absolutely needs to go there, so they put 10 in hospital in all. As mentioned before, one dies. So from their perspective it now looks like they have a 2% mortality rate (Of 50 confirmed cases, one died). Of the 10 people in intensive care 9 made it through, so it looks like their health care system has a 90% success rate when it comes to curing the patients.)

Country B has way too few test kits so they only test patients who turn up at the hospital in dire condition. They get 5 of these, and one of them dies. To country B it now looks as if the disease has a 20% fatality rate, and their hospitals only manage to cure 80% of the patients.

The above was only a snaphot in time, of course. Things will develop in both countries, but probably differently because the governments have different information about the disease. Country A will have a better chance at timing their lockdown right to avoid having their hospital overwhelmed. If either country fails at that they may experience additional deaths from otherwise treatable conditions.

This is an excellent analogy. I would add opaque, authoritarian Country C, which is probably lying about diagnostics, metrics, and results.

 

[pipelineaudio]

So what is the takeaway from the new CDC "you can get it from talking" stuff? is it stuff we knew all along?

No change to, don;t be anywhere near other people right now, mask or no mask?

Sounds like that David price video is now definitely dangerous advice rather than just surely dangerous advice, right?

 

[pipelineaudio]

Are any countries actually over the hump? Do we actually know there is a 'other side' of this thing? Looks like Korea sort of is, but things still don't look good.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

Are any countries actually over the hump? Do we actually know there is a 'other side' of this thing? Looks like Korea sort of is, but things still don't look good.

Of course we know that there's an "other side". How could there not be? We know, within a small but simultaneously broad range, the demographics and percentages of people who experience problems with the virus. So even if the "other side" means the virus infects everyone, and the percentages that involves, we still know that at some point we reach the other side of that.

 

[JeanTate]

You can tell something about whether there is enough testing by looking at the percentage of tests that return a "hit". For example Norway has a 5% success rate in this regard. (102k tested, 5200 found positive.) But people are only being tested if there is some reason to think that they may be positive, so the real proportion of the population that is infected is likely lower then 5%.

Let's make a thought-experiment and create two mini-countries. Both countries have a population of 1000 people, of which 100 are infected. Of these 100 cases 20 will become ill enough to experience symptoms, five of those will become ill enough that they must go to a hospital, and one will die.

Country A does extensive testing and find the 20 with symptoms (because they report sick) plus 30 more who had contact with the 20. Their NHS has enough capacity to put five more in hospital than absolutely needs to go there, so they put 10 in hospital in all. As mentioned before, one dies. So from their perspective it now looks like they have a 2% mortality rate (Of 50 confirmed cases, one died). Of the 10 people in intensive care 9 made it through, so it looks like their health care system has a 90% success rate when it comes to curing the patients.)

Country B has way too few test kits so they only test patients who turn up at the hospital in dire condition. They get 5 of these, and one of them dies. To country B it now looks as if the disease has a 20% fatality rate, and their hospitals only manage to cure 80% of the patients.

The above was only a snaphot in time, of course. Things will develop in both countries, but probably differently because the governments have different information about the disease. Country A will have a better chance at timing their lockdown right to avoid having their hospital overwhelmed. If either country fails at that they may experience additional deaths from otherwise treatable conditions.

Great!

Over in FiveThirtyEight, founder Nate Silver gives a similar, longer explanation: Coronavirus Case Counts Are Meaningless*

The * is a sub-title: "Unless you know something about testing. And even then, it gets complicated."

 

[The Atheist]

Why half a million? Why 2%?

Looking at statistics, once you get to 2% of a population, you're starting to get a true picture of what's going on. At lower percentages, you're probably only seeing results of symptomatic people, which is no good.

1/2M is 2% of Aussie's population, and since they're testing widely and among contacts of infected people, you would be catching wild infections as well, as if it's in a large number of people in the community, infections would be passing from people other than their contacts.

How likely are you to get covid-19 from a bleeding paper cut on your finger, say, or shooting up with a dirty needle (this is how some intravenous drug addicts get AIDS/HIV, hepatitis, etc)?

Zero chance. It's not a blood-borne virus.

Are any countries actually over the hump? Do we actually know there is a 'other side' of this thing? Looks like Korea sort of is, but things still don't look good.

Australia & NZ might well be.

It's still too early to be sure, but it looks like stopping importing infections and pursuing the ones you do is a good way to stamp it out.

Ergo, not having land borders looks like a seriously big advantage once you stop the planes and those gigantic floating petri-dish things that people go for cruises on.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Fauci has fallen for Trump, as does everyone who works with Trump because they need something he will only give if he thinks you respect him.

It is unconscionable how much cover he is giving to Trump, given that his only obligation is to provide the best information available.
He isn't a politician or spin doctor, and working as one can only hurt the efforts to deal with the epidemic.

I agree. Not just wanting something, maybe Fauci thinks he can be a better messenger if he stays in Trump's good graces.

But I think it's more than that. I think even Fauci is star struck. It seems impossible given you'd think Fauci was smarter than that. Maybe he likes being in the limelight or being so welcomed in the White House. I don't know exactly what, but I think something like that is at play here.


Pisses me off Fauci is claiming we have 'new' information about asymptomatic spread when the info is absolutely not new at all. Rationalizing his bad recommendations will not be missed in the history of these current events.

 

[JeanTate]

Of course we know that there's an "other side". How could there not be? We know, within a small but simultaneously broad range, the demographics and percentages of people who experience problems with the virus. So even if the "other side" means the virus infects everyone, and the percentages that involves, we still know that at some point we reach the other side of that.

There are at least a couple of caveats, both quite worrisome:

- Once you've been infected and have recovered, you are immune, you cannot be re-infected. Is this true for everyone? How long does this immunity last? Does the degree of immunity and/or how long it lasts vary between individuals? If so, what is the variation?

- SARS-COV-2 mutates into different strains. How likely is it that immunity to one strain does not confer immunity to another?

I think the only "other side" we could be truly comfortable with is driving SARS-COV-2 into extinction. As we have done with smallpox and are close to doing with polio, to take a couple of examples.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I have heard that people that are immune are still able to breathe in virus particles, keep them in the nose, throat, and lungs, and breathe them out again later, thereby possibly infecting other people, even though the virus is killed swiftly if it it enters their body.

Viruses don't work that way. They enter the nose and either enter and infect cells somewhere in the airway, or they don't hang around. They aren't going to sit there and later be passed on to someone else.

 

[JeanTate]

Thanks.

<snip>

How likely are you to get covid-19 from a bleeding paper cut on your finger, say, or shooting up with a dirty needle (this is how some intravenous drug addicts get AIDS/HIV, hepatitis, etc)?

Zero chance. It's not a blood-borne virus.

<snip>

What is it about/in blood that destroys the viral particles?

Are all coronaviruses alike in this regard?

 

[JesseCuster]

Looking at statistics, once you get to 2% of a population, you're starting to get a true picture of what's going on.

Why is 2% a true picture and not 1%? Is this 2% thing a rule that actual statisticians use when deciding whether a poll or sample represents a population?