Cont: 2019-nCoV / Corona virus Pt 3

[Andy_Ross]

wrong thread

 

[ceptimus]

UK didn't have enough testing capacity to continue the community based testing and "pivoted" ( that was the word used by the Chief Medical Office at one of the Downing Street press conferences / briefings) to mainly testing just people in hospital, already suspected to have the disease. This was about March 7th I think.

So the rise in positive test results from that date were to be expected. The "positive cases" figure for the UK is pretty useless for determining the true number of cases - it mainly reflects the testing capacity - the true number of cases is much higher than the number of positive tests, the problem is that no one knows just how much higher.

 

[EHocking]

There's hundreds of strains. Basically every sample is different. And they are mixed quite well, basically every country has infections from several different distant countries. There is nothing like 'this country has this strain', that is simply nonsense.

https://nextstrain.org/ncov

That site tracks geographic spread, thus the hundreds of colours. The colours don’t represent different strains or mutation history of the virus.

This analysis seems to indicate that, for instance, COVID-19 entered the USA on both coasts from different sources simultaneously- but the strain in the US the same on either coast.

Current consensus there may be up to eight strains. The initial strain, S, was supplanted by L, and it is the latter that seems to be more readily transmitted - that is why it is so widespread.
There does not seem to be a more virulent strain that is affecting a population more than a less virulent strain - example bing the relative homogeneous nature of the strain affecting the us.

The good news is that the SARS-CoV-2 virus has a relatively slow mutation rate and most experts seem to agree that a single vaccine is the more likely solution to halting COVID-19 and that, unlike flu, it is unlikely that a new and different vaccine will be needed annually.

 

[marting]

UK didn't have enough testing capacity to continue the community based testing and "pivoted" ( that was the word used by the Chief Medical Office at one of the Downing Street press conferences / briefings) to mainly testing just people in hospital, already suspected to have the disease. This was about March 7th I think.

So the rise in positive test results from that date were to be expected. The "positive cases" figure for the UK is pretty useless for determining the true number of cases - it mainly reflects the testing capacity - the true number of cases is much higher than the number of positive tests, the problem is that no one knows just how much higher.

This is a problem pretty much everywhere in the West. We really won't get a good picture for at least another week or two. At least I hope it will be clearer by then.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Personally I’d like to go a stage further if we find recovering does give you immunity and/or we get a vaccine. People can then be forced to confirm they are immune before they are allowed to buy tickets for the likes of football matches and concerts etc. Whilst those that aren’t aren’t allowed to. It means we slowly build back up to “life as normal” while keeping the risk to the health service and to individuals as low as possible.

There are 2 problems with this idea:
1) Currently there is such a small percentage of the population that could have become immune because of having been infected that there wouldn't be enough of an audience for any sporting event or concert to make a difference.
2) It could (and IMHO likely would) motivate young people who expect that would only have mild symptoms to deliberately court getting infected so that they could be classified as immune and attend events.

 

[novaphile]

It seems to me that the most effective, least onerous measures that will have to remain in place involve all of the following:
- widespread testing (with rapid turn-around times and full disclosure of results)
- vigorous contact tracing
- strict isolation of those found infected
- (maybe) isolation of all contacts (irrespective of test results, until we know a lot more about this devil).

I, for one, hope no one, anywhere, returns to the old normal. The only way we will drive SARS-COV-2 (and future nasties like it) to extinction includes a new normal that accepts mandatory strict isolation of those infected (to take one example).

To these I'd like to propose:

Extremely High fines or Death Penalty for anyone who:
goes to work sick; or,
goes out in public for any non-essential reason while sick; or,
sells symptom suppressors and encourages people to go out while taking them; or,
penalises any employee for taking time off sick.

We had such a problem with one employee bringing viruses etc. to work, we (the whole team) developed the habit of spraying him with Glen20 every time he came in sick. He was from the "sick days are for hangovers or playing golf" school.

 

[The Atheist]

There does not seem to be a more virulent strain that is affecting a population more than a less virulent strain - example bing the relative homogeneous nature of the strain affecting the us.

Good work, thanks. I threw the idea in because I'm still confused by what seems to be anomalies between countries, and in some cases, in different parts of the same country - Hawaii being a good example of the latter.

We still know so little, but more evidence is becoming available, so hopefully we'll get the answers.

The good news is that the SARS-CoV-2 virus has a relatively slow mutation rate and most experts seem to agree that a single vaccine is the more likely solution to halting COVID-19 and that, unlike flu, it is unlikely that a new and different vaccine will be needed annually.

I've seen that analysis in a few places now, so I hope it's right.

To these I'd like to propose:

Extremely High fines or Death Penalty for anyone who:
goes to work sick; or,
goes out in public for any non-essential reason while sick; or,
sells symptom suppressors and encourages people to go out while taking them; or,
penalises any employee for taking time off sick.

We had such a problem with one employee bringing viruses etc. to work, we (the whole team) developed the habit of spraying him with Glen20 every time he came in sick. He was from the "sick days are for hangovers or playing golf" school.

I'd second that idea.

I'd missed all the viruses last winter, then had to spend a couple of weeks in-house at a customer's premises and got the worst one I'd had in years from a piece of **** that turned up to work coughing his lungs out.

If nothing else, Covid-19 might start to discourage that kind of behaviour, because the not-sick people will make them go home.

Employers could certainly help by increasing sick leave provisions.

 

[The Atheist]

Very sensible piece from Dr William Hanage, a professor of the evolution and epidemiology of infectious disease at Harvard: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/16/number-coronavirus-pandemic

 

[a_unique_person]

Why it is hard to make a coronavirus vaccine.


https://www.abc.net.au/news/health/2020-04-17/coronavirus-vaccine-ian-frazer/12146616


It's complicated.

 

[marting]

https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/16...uggests-patients-are-responding-to-treatment/

Chicago hospital treating severe Covid-19 patients with Gilead Sciences’ antiviral medicine remdesivir in a closely watched clinical trial is seeing rapid recoveries in fever and respiratory symptoms, with nearly all patients discharged in less than a week, STAT has learned.

 

[rjh01]

The 60k figure is coming from the [url="https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america']IMHE model[/URL] that Trump's Administration is using.

Two days after you posted that the estimate went from 60,000 to 68,841. Now even that is looking optimistic. It says that on 15 April there will be 28,014 deaths. Actual deaths as stated here https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/ were 32,443 a difference of 4,429. There could be another 4,000 deaths between now and August above the previous estimate which would make the number about 76,000 deaths.

This is not a criticism of the people who gave us that page. It just shows how hard it is to project into the future. A lot of the discrepancy is due to a redefinition by one state. You will know the details.

 

[Planigale]

You yourself have just posted the difference between the UK and SK and it’s even implied in the article you linked to but then you say there was no difference!

SK implemented a rigorous test, contact tracing and quarantine, the UK didn’t.

I did not say there was no difference in methodology or outcome. What I said was the policy was the same. Identify, test, isolate, contact trace. What I am flagging up is this policy failed in Europe, before we say that this is the solution because it worked in South Korea we also need to understand why it failed in Europe. Otherwise there is the danger of repeating a previously failed strategy. The technology used may be the explanation, but we need to be careful not to put reliance into a shiny bit of tech when the problem lies elsewhere.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

As critical as i have been of our response, if I have to pick which is more likely to save my life?

[IMGw=800]https://i.imgur.com/NbglSyi.png[/IMGw]

FWIW, the picture has changed somewhat over the last 5 days. The UK is now at 202 deaths per million, and the US is at 105. So the change has been from the US's number being approximately a third of the UK's to being approximately half.

We'll have to wait and see whether this trend continues.

 

[Ulf Nereng]

FWIW, the picture has changed somewhat over the last 5 days. The UK is now at 202 deaths per million, and the US is at 105. So the change has been from the US's number being approximately a third of the UK's to being approximately half.

We'll have to wait and see whether this trend continues.

Yes, we really can't compare untill the countries are through the worst of it and have it down to where they can contemplate loosening the restrictions.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

After several days of zero new daily deaths, I noticed that China is showing 1,290 new deaths today. Probably an anomaly due to less than daily reporting of their numbers, but still an interesting data point.

 

[Darat]

I did not say there was no difference in methodology or outcome. What I said was the policy was the same. Identify, test, isolate, contact trace. What I am flagging up is this policy failed in Europe, before we say that this is the solution because it worked in South Korea we also need to understand why it failed in Europe. Otherwise there is the danger of repeating a previously failed strategy. The technology used may be the explanation, but we need to be careful not to put reliance into a shiny bit of tech when the problem lies elsewhere.

Policy is not the same as doing.

SK: we plan on doing a,b,c to get to X
SK: did a,b,c
SK: got to X

UK: we plan on doing a,b,c to get to X
UK: did a,c
UK: didn’t get to X

You can’t say the plan didn’t work in the UK because the plan wasn’t followed.

So again what I said is correct regardless of the inability of our government to carry it out.

 

[Darat]

Yes, we really can't compare untill the countries are through the worst of it and have it down to where they can contemplate loosening the restrictions.

And of course we have to know that we are comparing like to like. I once read how much worse the UK baby survival rates were in the UK compared to Bulgaria. They were, but the UK counted all deaths of babies under the age of one and the Bulgarians just those that dead at birth.

 

[Dave Rogers]

After several days of zero new daily deaths, I noticed that China is showing 1,290 new deaths today. Probably an anomaly due to less than daily reporting of their numbers, but still an interesting data point.

It's a revision to historical data based on better data collection, according to the officials responsible. They don't claim to be reporting new deaths.

Dave

 

[JeanTate]

After several days of zero new daily deaths, I noticed that China is showing 1,290 new deaths today. Probably an anomaly due to less than daily reporting of their numbers, but still an interesting data point.

The reason given: re-assessment of deaths, especially in the early days of the (then) epidemic in Wuhan.

I do not know how common this is, in general, for deaths of any kind, but for covid-19 - especially in China - I think it will be quite common.

From SCMP's reports of (quickly deleted) social media posts, it was clear that in the early days in Wuhan a lot of people were dying - very likely of covid-19 - but their deaths were not recorded properly (some were even cremated without any tests at all being done).

This is, I feel, more a symptom of an overloaded system trying to deal with something new and spreading rapidly, than it is of a deep desire to cover up. In the last few days, here in the US, there are many reports of people dying at home (and in nursing homes), almost certainly from covid-19, but whose deaths are (or were) not counted in "official totals". Why? Because those bodies were not tested.

 

[Dr.Sid]

I did not say there was no difference in methodology or outcome. What I said was the policy was the same. Identify, test, isolate, contact trace. What I am flagging up is this policy failed in Europe, before we say that this is the solution because it worked in South Korea we also need to understand why it failed in Europe. Otherwise there is the danger of repeating a previously failed strategy. The technology used may be the explanation, but we need to be careful not to put reliance into a shiny bit of tech when the problem lies elsewhere.

Big difference is also when those policies start. What's easy with 10 people per day, cannot be possible with 1000 people per day.
I don't know specific timeline in UK, but in local news UK was reported from the start as 'let it run wild' country, and only later they were supposed to make their mind.