SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)

Skills said:
It wouldn't. It could potentially make it a lot worse for those who have it though (if your respiratory system is strained, you're struggling to provide oxygen to your blood cells - and anaemic blood cells already have less capacity for oxygen).
Click to expand...

Damn are you saying those with anaemia are more vulnerable to this, or do you mean those with both malaria and anaemia?
 
Pogue Mahone said:
You seem to be arguing that the more laissez faire approach in the UK is the right one, as loads of people will end up infected anyway and only herd immunity will cause an end to the pandemic. I’m arguing that the more aggressive and early forced social distancing (school closures etc) we’re seeing in every other EU country will cause a more gradual rate of infection, hence easing the burden on the health services. That’s what we disagree on.
Click to expand...
Because the world is so connected both will lead to roughly the same COVID-19 related outcomes I think anyway, but there’s a whole lot more to the decision making than that. I think greater social distancing (or quarantining of populations) at this stage would be ill timed and needs to be reserved for when the problems inevitably severely increase. This is going to get so much worse and there are monumental implications to putting (aspects of) society and the economy on pause.
 
Rams said:
The genie was out of the bottle months ago. Anybody who’s ever taken an interest in the history of infectious diseases could have predicted months ago that the World will go in lock down. It’s inevitable imo. We’ve known since at least the Middle Ages that quarantaine is the only way to combat the threat of highly infectious diseases we have no cure for.
In the Netherlands things are escalating quickly. From tomorrow people are being asked to work from home where possible, avoid public transport and events of > 100 people have been banned. University’s and collega’s have been suspended. I predict it’s only a matter of when Schools & day care centers will follow, then full lock down The problem is that it’s impossible to contain the virus without quarantine once it can be no longer traced who infected who, as is now already the case in most countries with significant amounts of infections.
It seems to be a relatively mild virus for the vast majority of us who get it, but deadly the elderly or people with underlying medical issues. So the next 3 months are going to be incredibly weird and especially dull for the most of us.
Click to expand...

There’s an article in the NEJM looking at 1099 Chinese patients. Just over 12% of 15-49 year olds had “severe disease”. And by “severe” they mean admitted to intensive care.

Now that still means that almost 90% of them didn’t have severe disease but feck me, a 1 in 8 chance of ending up admitted to ITU is not something young people should be feeling relaxed about!
 
sullydnl said:
In case you're interested, UK science guy's explanation for not doing this was that there wasn't actually that much risk of mass infection. He basically said that there are only so many people one person could infect in a crowd like that and that it's the people who are in regular close contact with the infected person who would be more in danger. So they didn't think it was particularly worthwhile.
Click to expand...

How does that even make sense? Is there a limited number of viral droplets/particles that a single person can breathe out into the air? What about the public transport - all the supporters loading up on busses, trains, taxis (infecting taxi drivers) to pile into games? Or those hanging around pubs before and after games in enclosed buildings?
 
Revan said:
If everything goes right, human trials expected to start in July/August, add a few months for that, so realistically, I guess they can have a licensed vaccine by the beginning of next year.
Click to expand...

This. Think they said the earliest they'll have a vaccine will be early-mid 2021.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
There’s an article in the NEJM looking at 1099 Chinese patients. Just over 12% of 15-49 year olds had “severe disease”. And by “severe” they mean admitted to intensive care.

Now that still means that almost 90% of them didn’t have severe disease but feck me, a 1 in 8 chance of ending up admitted to ITU is not something young people should be feeling relaxed about!
Click to expand...

That is far far higher than any other reports I've read. If it is anywhere near that our hospital systems are fecked.
 
Revan said:
If everything goes right, human trials expected to start in July/August, add a few months for that, so realistically, I guess they can have a licensed vaccine by the beginning of next year.
Click to expand...
I think this is the best we can hope for, at this stage.
 
RedSky said:
Italy is a great example of a country being ill prepared for it, hence why the death rate is higher as they've not had the resources to cope.
Click to expand...
On what do you base this assertion?
 
TMDaines said:
Because the world is so connected both will lead to roughly the same COVID-19 related outcomes I think anyway, but there’s a whole lot more to the decision making than that. I think greater social distancing (or quarantining of populations) at this stage would be ill timed and needs to be reserved for when the problems inevitably severely increase. This is going to get so much worse and there are monumental implications to putting (aspects of) society and the economy on pause.
Click to expand...

The idea that there's danger in implementing measures too early is one that most European countries seem to agree with.

It's striking though that the UK's idea of the optimal time for implementing those measures seems to be markedly different from that of other countries. So why is that? Is the situation within the UK markedly different to that of other countries? Or are they working off markedly different modelling?

I get the basic principle behind delaying measures, I just don't get why the UK's timetable is so much different to that of other countries.
 
sullydnl said:
The idea that there's danger in implementing measures too early is one that most European countries seem to agree with.

It's striking though that the UK's idea of the optimal time for implementing those measures seems to be markedly different from that of other countries. So why is that? Is the situation within the UK markedly different to that of other countries? Or are they working of markedly different modelling?

I get the basic principle behind delaying measures, I just don't get why the UK's timetable is so much different to that of other countries.
Click to expand...

Same reason as the USA. The $$$ co-efficient played a much bigger role in the models.
 
TMDaines said:
Because the world is so connected both will lead to roughly the same COVID-19 related outcomes I think anyway, but there’s a whole lot more to the decision making than that. I think greater social distancing (or quarantining of populations) at this stage would be ill timed and needs to be reserved for when the problems inevitably severely increase. This is going to get so much worse and there are monumental implications to putting (aspects of) society and the economy on pause.
Click to expand...

Of course there are pros and cons to going into lockdown but when every single country who is further along the curve than the UK says they regret not locking down sooner and every other country at a similar time-point is listening to that advice... well... I’m not really seeing why you think the Uk’s approach is the correct one.
 
Revan said:
If everything goes right, human trials expected to start in July/August, add a few months for that, so realistically, I guess they can have a licensed vaccine by the beginning of next year.
Click to expand...

Assuming it passes the trial and the virus doesn't mutate too much by next year.

If it does work it might make people get the flu vaccine more often as well.
 
Revan said:
If everything goes right, human trials expected to start in July/August, add a few months for that, so realistically, I guess they can have a licensed vaccine by the beginning of next year.
Click to expand...

Hoping some existing antiviral starts proving effective without having to produce a new one and wait for the safety trials to be completed.

For instance, there are antivirals designed for other outbreaks already being used to treat Coronavirus off-label, Tamiflu specifically - according to this article.

In hospitals, doctors and nurses are sometimes treating COVID-19 patients with Tamiflu, which seems to suppress the virus' reproduction in at least some cases. This is somewhat surprising, Michigan Tech virologist Ebenezer Tumban told Live Science, as Tamiflu was designed to target an enzyme on the influenza virus, not on coronaviruses.
Click to expand...
 
Skills said:
How does that even make sense? Is there a limited number of viral droplets/particles that a single person can breathe out into the air? What about the public transport - all the supporters loading up on busses, trains, taxis (infecting taxi drivers) to pile into games? Or those hanging around pubs before and after games in enclosed buildings?
Click to expand...

Your guess is as good as mine. It sort of made sense to me if you were just thinking about who they might infect while actually in the stadium but as you say, the very act of getting to that point would see them cross paths with many more.
 
17 Van der Gouw said:
Hoping some existing antiviral starts proving effective without having to produce a new one and wait for the safety trials to be completed.

For instance, there are antivirals designed for other outbreaks already being used to treat Coronavirus off-label, Tamiflu specifically - according to this article.
Click to expand...
Yeah, maybe anti-virals will come earlier than the vaccine. I read that there is a promising anti-viral which was made for ebola (and failed at fighting it) which is showing some progress.

In any case, probably the only "weapon" we have this year is isolation.

I thought that Tamiflu was supposed to not work here.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
You seem to be arguing that the more laissez faire approach in the UK is the right one, as loads of people will end up infected anyway and only herd immunity will cause an end to the pandemic. I’m arguing that the more aggressive and early forced social distancing (school closures etc) we’re seeing in every other EU country will cause a more gradual rate of infection, hence easing the burden on the health services. That’s what we disagree on.
Click to expand...
Different solutions for different countries. In most european countries the infection rate is already higher than in the UK (often 5 times more). They have to act now, so that their health system are not overburdened in 2-4 weeks. The UK has more time, and now imagine the UK introduces similar measures now.
The probably most feared consequence ist, that everything works, the infection rate goes down, the NHS copes rather "easily" with the pandemic. The population feels safe and that is everything under control.

Mid-April comes good weather around and everybody wants to enjoy themselves and goes out again, visiting festivals, sitting in parks and having a good time.
And BOOM the infections spike again. Cause the overwhelming majority never had the virus, they are getting now infected. And the NHS is again at risk to be overburdened. So the government decides to shut down public life again. How do you think the population will react?
Just say no problem, we will do it again and stay in the summer months home? Or will substantial parts (Youth and young adults, the least at risk age groups) say F*** that I am going to enjoy my life and the summer? So the infection chain starts again.
If its the latter, the government, UK and especially the NHS is in deep s***.

And that is the reason they talk about the right timing of the social distancing measures. Its probably for all out effectiveness a one time only shot. And you want to get it right to protect the most vulnerable and give them the best possible access to medical care without forcing medical personell to make choices who lives and who not.
 
Tucholsky said:
Different solutions for different countries. In most european countries the infection rate is already higher than in the UK (often 5 times more). They have to act now, so that their health system are not overburdened in 2-4 weeks. The UK has more time, and now imagine the UK introduces similar measures now.
The probably most feared consequence ist, that everything works, the infection rate goes down, the NHS copes rather "easily" with the pandemic. The population feels safe and that is everything under control.

Mid-April comes good weather around and everybody wants to enjoy themselves and goes out again, visiting festivals, sitting in parks and having a good time.
And BOOM the infections spike again. Cause the overwhelming majority never had the virus, they are getting now infected. And the NHS is again at risk to be overburdened. So the government decides to shut down public life again. How do you think the population will react?
Just say no problem, we will do it again and stay in the summer months home? Or will substantial parts (Youth and young adults, the least at risk age groups) say F*** that I am going to enjoy my life and the summer? So the infection chain starts again.
If its the latter, the government, UK and especially the NHS is in deep s***.

And that is the reason they talk about the right timing of the social distancing measures. Its probably for all out effectiveness a one time only shot. And you want to get it right to protect the most vulnerable and give them the best possible access to medical care without forcing medical personell to make choices who lives and who not.
Click to expand...

This is not true. Loads of countries with a lower rate of infection than the UK are going into lockdown. Including Ireland. And the UK health service WILL be completely overwhelmed in 2-4 weeks if it’s current rate of infection continues.
 
sullydnl said:
The idea that there's danger in implementing measures too early is one that most European countries seem to agree with.

It's striking though that the UK's idea of the optimal time for implementing those measures seems to be markedly different from that of other countries. So why is that? Is the situation within the UK markedly different to that of other countries? Or are they working off markedly different modelling?

I get the basic principle behind delaying measures, I just don't get why the UK's timetable is so much different to that of other countries.
Click to expand...
Whether these figures are totally accurate or not is up for debate. But...

Country,
Other		Total
Cases		Active
Cases		Tot Cases/
1M pop
Italy15,11312,839250.0
S. Korea7,8697,470153.5
Norway800798147.6
Iran10,0756,370120.0
Denmark674673116.4
Bahrain197162115.8
Switzerland868857100.3
Qatar26226290.9
Sweden68768568.0
Spain3,1462,87167.3
China80,79614,79156.1
Slovenia969646.2
France2,8762,80344.1
Austria36135640.1
Netherlands61460735.8
Belgium39939534.4
Germany2,7452,71432.8
Singapore1879132.0
Estonia272720.4
Finland10910819.7
Kuwait807518.7
Hong Kong1305017.3
Ireland706914.2
Israel10910512.6
Greece11711611.2
Czechia11311310.6
Lebanon686410.0
UK5905628.7
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

The UK only has 8.7 cases per 1 million people. Although it seems bad, I think the government are waiting for there to be a critical mass of infections for the lockdown to make sense.

Compared to a lot of people South East Asian countries, Europeans aren't willing to accept being told what to do by people in authority (even when it's in their best interest).

The UK have to time it right because we'll only get one chance. There'll be civil unrest if we try to implement two lockdowns in succession. And that would only make things even worse.
 
When Jamie Bryson speaks sense you know shit is getting real.
Edit: Have no idea how he popped up on my TL.

 
Pogue Mahone said:
Of course there are pros and cons to going into lockdown but when every single country who is further along the curve than the UK says they regret not locking down sooner and every other country at a similar time-point is listening to that advice... well... I’m not really seeing why you think the Uk’s approach is the correct one.
Click to expand...
Because even if we adopted Italian measures now or closed all non-essential workplaces for a whole month, we would still certainly be in a worse situation in a month’s time. We would no longer be able to maintain those measures for a more than a month, and would then find ourselves in a moment in which we would benefit from them even more. I think people are overestimating massively how far we are along in even the idealised flattened curve. As either Sir Patrick Vallance or Chris Witty said earlier, they reckon currently (probably with 95% certainty) that between 5000-10000 people in the UK have the virus... and that means we are still at the very first flat bit of the chart before it even starts to ramp up. We’ll be lucky to be at this point on the other side of the curve before next winter.
 
SnowRoll said:
Humanity has been saved?

https://www.afp.com/en/news/1315/me...le-vaccine-candidate-covid-19-202003120053451
Click to expand...

I don't think so.
At the end of the page is a disclaimer:
This material is not an AFP editorial material, and AFP shall not bear responsibility for the accuracy of its content. In case you have any questions about the content, kindly refer to the contact person/entity mentioned in the text of the release.

And the listed contact works for an Canadian PR-Company.
And the aformentioned vaccine ist the FIRST product in clinical trials of the medical company. So in my opinion, a bought article that is PR and search for funding.
 
MaxiPaxi said:
Click to expand...

ESaXzXaU0AEIXjL
 
Dante said:
Whether these figures are totally accurate or not is up for debate. But...

Country,
Other		Total
Cases		Active
Cases		Tot Cases/
1M pop
Italy15,11312,839250.0
S. Korea7,8697,470153.5
Norway800798147.6
Iran10,0756,370120.0
Denmark674673116.4
Bahrain197162115.8
Switzerland868857100.3
Qatar26226290.9
Sweden68768568.0
Spain3,1462,87167.3
China80,79614,79156.1
Slovenia969646.2
France2,8762,80344.1
Austria36135640.1
Netherlands61460735.8
Belgium39939534.4
Germany2,7452,71432.8
Singapore1879132.0
Estonia272720.4
Finland10910819.7
Kuwait807518.7
Hong Kong1305017.3
Ireland706914.2
Israel10910512.6
Greece11711611.2
Czechia11311310.6
Lebanon686410.0
UK5905628.7

The UK only has 8.7 cases per 1 million people. Although it seems bad, I think the government is waiting for their to be a critical mass of infections for the lockdown to make sense.

Compared to a lot of people South East Asian countries, Europeans aren't willing to accept being told what to do by people in authority (even when it's in their best interest).

The UK have to time it right because we'll only get one chance. There'll be civil unrest if we try to implement two lockdowns in succession.
Click to expand...

True, but then Ireland was at almost the exact same rate of cases per million just yesterday, while (I think) having more tests per million. Would the fact that Ireland has a smaller population shift the point at which measures need to be stepped up?
 
Møllemanden said:
139 people returning from a skiing trip to Tyrol in Austia has more or less closed Denmark for two weeks. The amount of infected people in Denmark has skyrocketed in two days. Luckily England is not a popular tourist attraction.

You guys are fecked!

PL matches will be banned within the week.
Click to expand...
Do you have any idea how many tourists visit London?
 
Pogue Mahone said:
This is not true. Loads of countries with a lower rate of infection than the UK are going into lockdown. Including Ireland. And the UK health service WILL be completely overwhelmed in 2-4 weeks if it’s current rate of infection continues.
Click to expand...

Ireland is the one going earlier that most. Spain, Italy, France, Denmark and Germany all about a week ahead of UK in terms of infections per population.
 
0le said:
Damn are you saying those with anaemia are more vulnerable to this, or do you mean those with both malaria and anaemia?
Click to expand...
In essence yes. Any pathology which reduces your ability to deliver oxygen to tissues.

Having fecked up lungs already reduces your ability obviously. Your lungs may be fine, but those with anaemia lack haem/iron which oxygen uses to be transported around the body. Same goes for those with genetic haem abnormalities like thalassaemia.

In my view (a medical one), I'd be more concerned if you have a pre-existing lung condition over anaemia. I have asthma and get wheezy with viral illnesses.
 
sullydnl said:
True, but then Ireland was at almost the exact same rate of cases per million just yesterday, while (I think) having more tests per million. Would the fact that Ireland has a smaller population shift the point at which measures need to be stepped up?
Click to expand...

Ireland going early as Varadkar wants to appear as if he's doing something. Political choice rather than science based.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.