MERS Coronavirus warning

To add to my previous post, I foresee the need to do things differently in the schools because I see social distancing as creating a shortage of teachers even if the shortage of classrooms were to somehow be solved. Thus there needs to be some way of conserving teaching man hours and using the available qualified teachers more effectively until the crisis is over and we can go back to whatever "normal" becomes.
 
In terms of the study from JP Morgan, @exbleep pointed out a few issues with a graph produced recently in this thread.

It should be noted that the author, Mr Kilanovic is a physicist.

If he were a microbiologist, he might know that an infection curve goes up and then down. The curves are typical across any study which looks at the growth, proliferation and death of organism in a closed environment. In this case, the organism are the viruses which infect hosts. It could be rabbits in a field or yeast in a bottle.

As they run out of hosts, the number of viruses decreases and falls. This is normal.

The reason they run out of hosts is because some hosts effect an non specific immune response which eliminates viruses prior to cell entry. Some hosts eliminate the viruses in the latent phase inside cells , some hosts die. Some become immune. If you shed viral particles once immune , likely they will be fragments not promoting illness.

The lockdown keeps the number of hosts LOWER and allows the virus to enter its decline phase of infectivity which it may maintain for a while after lockdown is ended. We need to see what happens over the next four weeks because these things have many contributing variables. I say 4 weeks because, depending on the strain, symptoms take time to appear.

At the moment, we need to see the actual paper, not just a link to a website or the express. Save to say, I am surprised that a physicist wrote this .
 
Serious question:

How did people die of "normal" flu? Were they all gathered together and hospitalised in "flu wards" at a certain point of their decline, or did they just normally deteriorate quickly and then pop their clogs in bed at home/care home?
In a bad flu season, the hospitals would be crammed to the rafters with flu patients and lots would die there. This is why the government here (Canada, I assume the UK is the same) wants everyone to get their flu vaccine. It's not just to keep you from getting the flu, it's to keep you from giving the flu to everyone else.

According to what I've been hearing from people working in hospitals and medical labs, COVID-19 is many times worse than a bad flu season. Patients get sicker, take more resources to care for, and die in larger numbers. This is why such a big effort was put into emptying out hospitals to prepare for the expected wave of incoming COVID-19 patients.

Given the "its just flu" debate, I was wondering if a rational comparison is being affected by the highly visible and emotive C19 ward scenes vs. perhaps the more widely distributed - and thus unseen/unremarked - fatalities of other ailments?

E.g. I recall an anecdote of someone's "worst day on the job" when, as night nurse in a care home, they lost six or seven patients during just one shift - flu or similar.
The Canadian army has medical teams working in care homes in Quebec because the normal staff there are overloaded with COVID-19 cases among the residents and staff. This is not something that I can recall ever happening before, no matter how bad the flu season. It's bad, and we've seen nothing like it since the Spanish Flu pandemic.
 
In a bad flu season, the hospitals would be crammed to the rafters with flu patients and lots would die there. This is why the government here (Canada, I assume the UK is the same) wants everyone to get their flu vaccine. It's not just to keep you from getting the flu, it's to keep you from giving the flu to everyone else.

According to what I've been hearing from people working in hospitals and medical labs, COVID-19 is many times worse than a bad flu season. Patients get sicker, take more resources to care for, and die in larger numbers. This is why such a big effort was put into emptying out hospitals to prepare for the expected wave of incoming COVID-19 patients.


The Canadian army has medical teams working in care homes in Quebec because the normal staff there are overloaded with COVID-19 cases among the residents and staff. This is not something that I can recall ever happening before, no matter how bad the flu season. It's bad, and we've seen nothing like it since the Spanish Flu pandemic.
When I had to go to hospital with swine flu, I was stuck in a hospital corridor for 3 hours. It was freezing, I didn't actually feel bad respiratory wise, it was the fact that my head had massively swollen up to a totally abnormal size. Was out after a few days when swelling had subsided, was isolated in a single room.
 
5% showing symptoms who reported it. most do not because they do not believe they had it. so 4m have reported it, that means 40m have probably been infected and not known or not been severe enough to worry. most will have been before march and maybe all the way back to october going by the feedback I've had from the richmond area.

so 40k deaths using your figure but an extra death figure of 10k.

which is a very favourable statistic and better than crossing the road or staying in a hotel in Sharm without catching anything.

 
The BBC has a report on a study published in The Lancet, a leading medical journal. According to this study, taking hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19 increases the risk of death. Taking either in combination with antibiotics increases the risk of death even further.
The Lancet study involved 96,000 coronavirus patients, nearly 15,000 of whom were given hydroxychloroquine - or a related form chloroquine - either alone or with an antibiotic.

The study found that the patients were more likely to die in hospital and develop heart rhythm complications than other Covid patients in a comparison group.

The death rates of the treated groups were: hydroxychloroquine 18%; chloroquine 16.4%; control group 9%. Those treated with hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine in combination with antibiotics had an even higher death rate.

The researchers warned that hydroxychloroquine should not be used outside of clinical trials.
It doesn't look good for those few who had hopes that chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine would prove a magic cure for COVID-19.
 
Serious question:

How did people die of "normal" flu? Were they all gathered together and hospitalised in "flu wards" at a certain point of their decline, or did they just normally deteriorate quickly and then pop their clogs in bed at home/care home?

Given the "its just flu" debate, I was wondering if a rational comparison is being affected by the highly visible and emotive C19 ward scenes vs. perhaps the more widely distributed - and thus unseen/unremarked - fatalities of other ailments?

E.g. I recall an anecdote of someone's "worst day on the job" when, as night nurse in a care home, they lost six or seven patients during just one shift - flu or similar.


.
In reply to the first bit, I had the misfortune of having to take the missus to our local A&E last year in January when she was having a liver malfunction on the advice of a specialist to try and "jump the waiting queue".
Normally book in, triage and see an assessing doctor within half an hour.
Ambulances kept pulling up one after the other with flu patients. First time I've ever seen patients waiting on trolleys in the corridors and the observation wards were choc a bloc.

A nurse gave my missus a drip with antibiotics and something else to flush the liver.
We left after 8 hours without seeing a doctor and went to see the GP next day who said it was crazy to go to A&E during the flu season. Fortunately she got another appointment outside A&E rapidly.

In our temperate climate, the flu season usually starts November (ish) and starts tailing off in February. UK already had over 36,000 deaths from flu by the time CV-19 came along.

This from the ONS about 10 to 17 April this year:
The provisional number of deaths registered in England and Wales in the week ending 17 April 2020 (Week 16) was 22,351; this represents an increase of 3,835 deaths registered compared with the previous week (Week 15) and 11,854 more than the five-year average; this is the highest weekly total recorded since comparable figures begin in 1993.

That gives an average of around 1500 deaths per day in UK once the flu season tails off. Those figures show that week in April the daily death rate was slightly over 3,000, double the average over the past 5 years.

This bollox about that many people would have died anyway is just that, bollox.

But the super Google PhDs on here will have none of it, of course.
 
Cause and correlation. The statement gives no suggestion of a mechanism. Bear in mind that the people locked down together may normally be together so that the minimising of contacts outside the house reduces contacts and therefore host to host transmission.. You need a mechanism for that statement.
I also mentioned that particular statement would meet a greater burden of proof that his "7 days Sweden" "smart people said so" "don't need proof, where's yours?" dribblery. Which it does. Don't take things out of context.
 
I think the stage has been set.
It is most definitely is a stage.

With previous issues like SARS, MERS, effective research money was limited after the initial worries.
With the only previous "Scare market" individually named and branded coronaviruses, money and effort went away because SARS 1 turned into just another, probably will barely notice cold, and MERS is just too hot to travel well (but it's Daddy is still hanging out in EU bats). You put your marketing in the wrong basket, drop it and wait for the next opportunity.

In this case, the shock has been too great.
Looks like SARS 2 is the marketing opportunity we've been looking for.

As a result, it is likely that serious attention will continue to be paid to emerging diseases.
Serious attention has been shown to everything that shows up, to find good marketing candidates, ever since someone got the bright idea to unbundle all the "old jerky in a box marketing" and rebrand an individual cold virus with an upgrade of the name of all viruses scariest effect. Of course, SARS turned out be a weaker version of the cold, so we'll have to wait for the next contender to pop up. This is why "serious attention will continue to be paid." Of course, SARS was a marketing flop, so we can't call SARS-2, SARS II, nobody gets away with a remake of a flop anymore. But hey, look at that! SARS-2 is a bit more than average, now we can really push it.

See if you can figure out what really got attacked by the excellent marketing.
 

theinventor

Old-Salt
To pose a few questions that I have though, has anyone been looking at using supervised study as part of the mix? I was thinking in terms of setting up desks 2m apart in places such as school gymnasiums, and having them work on set assignments under the supervision of a handful of staff whose main job will be that of keeping order, not teaching them. The supervising staff needn't be qualified teachers, just properly vetted people who can keep order.

This keeps the students' noses to the study grindstone without requiring more classrooms and more teachers to be conjured up out of nowhere. It's not an ideal solution, but it may be what is possible with the available resources.

Pulling in retired teachers to mark papers and do similar non-contact things from home might also help to redistribute some of the work load and allow the man hours of the "front line" teachers be used more effectively. Is this being considered?

I don't know how practical these ideas might be. I'm raising these questions to try to see if there are ideas being considered to do things differently rather than trying to simply do the same as was done before, but just doing it 2m apart now.
Yes. My son's school will be offering that fo children who struggle to work at home. Sit in a classroom and do the 'home work" from there.
I think that C19 will be a Darwinian moment in education when we see the real sorting of the motivated from the slackers. The effects will last for years.
 
I sometimes find stream of thought writing a little difficult to understand. I will take it that you disagree.
Perhaps a trickling creek is more your "speed?"

All coronaviruses cause "the common cold" which is a syndrome, not a specific illness. At least until "SARS."

SARS is a renaming of ARDS, which is also a syndrome, but it is caused by just about anything, most often coming from ANY viral infection, especially coronaviruses (the cold), influenza viruses (the flu), and Respiratory Syncytial Virus (the sniffles).

Why give a single novel (new) coronavirus a scarier re-mix name of the scariest syndrome that all viruses (not just coronaviruses) can result in, and also give this universal syndrome (ARDS) the same novel scary name (instead of using it usual name) to imply it is something that is also novel?

Since SARS-CoV turned out to be "just another cold virus" after it's debut tour it is a marketing failure.

Since the new novel coronavirus is so similar to the now old and failed, not so novel coronavirus, it ended up with the name it deserved as per new novel naming convention... SARS-CoV-2.

But SARS is a no longer scary flop, so we need a new name in a hurry, so this not so novel coronavirus finally gets it's own "disease" to cause (instead of being the cold that can sometimes lead to ARDS), so let's just call it coronavirus disease, wait, doesn't every disinfectant that is in general use already say it kills "coronavirus" on the label? The re-tweetards are just as likely to push Lysol as the new "not scary enough" coronavirus disease...

We'll need a disease name for the old syndrome that doesn't say that... SARS already flopped, and "coronavirus" is still basically "the cold"... think of something else. Covid-19 it is. No time to get fancy, we've got marketing to do.
 
Translation: the Lizard People stole his tin foil.
Lizard people do not exist. Dirty lefty Canucks, on the other hand...

* go ahead and object to my re-use of your tactics. I don't mind.
 
My brother died with swine flu in 2009,was 40 with a wife and two kids. I was actually in hospital with it, it wasn't pleasant. Is that holy enough.
Which syndrome did his swine flu infection kill him with? Did he die on a ventilator with WET LUNG?
 
Imperial College London have released a report on their COVID-19 infection model for the US which goes down to the state level.

It's long and technical, so I don't recommend reading the whole thing unless you're really bored. The conclusions however can be summarised fairly readily.
These current reproduction numbers suggest that in many states the US epidemic is not under control and caution must be taken in loosening current interventions without additional measures in place. The high reproduction numbers are geographically clustered in the southern US and Great Plains region, while lower reproduction numbers are observed in areas that have suffered high COVID-19 mortality (such as the Northeast Corridor).
Long story short, the parts of the US which got hit hard by COVID-19 the first time around seem to have it under control now, while areas which were hit less hard will see faster growth now.

The high growth areas which the report specifically singles out are the southern US and Great Plains region.

While the US have on average reduced the growth of the pandemic, there isn't much evidence to suggest that it is under control in the majority of states. Without some other factors coming into play to reduce transmission, COVID-19 will persist, and in the majority of states grow in prevalence.
Our results suggest that while the US has substantially reduced its reproduction numbers in all states, there is little evidence that the epidemic is under control in the majority of states. Without changes in behaviour that result in reduced transmission, or interventions such as increased testing that limit transmission, new infections of COVID-19 are likely to persist, and, in the majority of states, grow.
Here's a map showing on a state by state level the probability that the Rt rate is below 1. When the Rt rate is 1, the infection level is steady, neither increasing or decreasing. When it is above 1, the infection level is increasing and the number of people infected is growing. When the number is below 1, the infection is dying out.

What the map shows is not how many people are infected, but whether the rate of infection is increasing or decreasing. On this map dark green areas show where it is either decreasing, or didn't get much of a foothold to begin with. Dark pink areas are where it seems to be growing the fastest. Pale areas are where it seems to be decreasing or increasing slowly.

usmapc19.png


Here's the same information displayed as a chart. It also shows initial (circle) rate before "social distancing" versus current (triangle) estimates. The width of the horizontal bars indicates the range of uncertainty, with the geometric symbol showing the most likely value. Positions more to the left side of the line at "1" in chart are seeing the infection decreasing, while those to the right are increasing.

uschartc19.png


They also have lists of how many currently infectious individuals they estimate are wandering about in each state. Our friend in Wyoming may be happy to know that they estimate somewhere between 0 and 1000 in his state, which they round off to 0.

ustablec19.png


Based on how rapidly the infection is spread combined with many infectious people there already are, it looks like the worst places to be are going to be Texas, Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, Arizona, Colorado, and Florida.

Rate of growth probably matters more than which has the highest number at present, so the state on that list that really stands out as having the biggest potential for problems is probably Texas. All of those states would be a good place to avoid for the present time however (assuming flights resume).
 

OneTenner

War Hero
Book Reviewer
According to news reports in Canada, some students seem to be able to study effectively at home, and some can't. In the case of the latter, many of the parents have given up even trying.

Some parents have to go to work all day (or all night). Some parents may be working from home but that doesn't make them magically able to supervise their children at the same time. Some parents don't have the academic ability or aptitude to effectively educate their children even if they had the will to do so.

To pose a few questions that I have though, has anyone been looking at using supervised study as part of the mix? I was thinking in terms of setting up desks 2m apart in places such as school gymnasiums, and having them work on set assignments under the supervision of a handful of staff whose main job will be that of keeping order, not teaching them. The supervising staff needn't be qualified teachers, just properly vetted people who can keep order.

This keeps the students' noses to the study grindstone without requiring more classrooms and more teachers to be conjured up out of nowhere. It's not an ideal solution, but it may be what is possible with the available resources.

Pulling in retired teachers to mark papers and do similar non-contact things from home might also help to redistribute some of the work load and allow the man hours of the "front line" teachers be used more effectively. Is this being considered?

I don't know how practical these ideas might be. I'm raising these questions to try to see if there are ideas being considered to do things differently rather than trying to simply do the same as was done before, but just doing it 2m apart now.
Sounds very much like 'exam conditions' - sure, it'll mean some repurposing of certain areas, school halls can't be used for assembly and PE halls will be closed so why not use them for proper learning, with the added bonus that the little darlings won't get stressed when it comes to exam time...
 
Imperial College London have released a report on their COVID-19 infection model for the US which goes down to the state level.

It's long and technical, so I don't recommend reading the whole thing unless you're really bored. The conclusions however can be summarised fairly readily.


Long story short, the parts of the US which got hit hard by COVID-19 the first time around seem to have it under control now, while areas which were hit less hard will see faster growth now.

The high growth areas which the report specifically singles out are the southern US and Great Plains region.

While the US have on average reduced the growth of the pandemic, there isn't much evidence to suggest that it is under control in the majority of states. Without some other factors coming into play to reduce transmission, COVID-19 will persist, and in the majority of states grow in prevalence.


Here's a map showing on a state by state level the probability that the Rt rate is below 1. When the Rt rate is 1, the infection level is steady, neither increasing or decreasing. When it is above 1, the infection level is increasing and the number of people infected is growing. When the number is below 1, the infection is dying out.

What the map shows is not how many people are infected, but whether the rate of infection is increasing or decreasing. On this map dark green areas show where it is either decreasing, or didn't get much of a foothold to begin with. Dark pink areas are where it seems to be growing the fastest. Pale areas are where it seems to be decreasing or increasing slowly.

View attachment 475970

Here's the same information displayed as a chart. It also shows initial (circle) rate before "social distancing" versus current (triangle) estimates. The width of the horizontal bars indicates the range of uncertainty, with the geometric symbol showing the most likely value. Positions more to the left side of the line at "1" in chart are seeing the infection decreasing, while those to the right are increasing.

View attachment 475972

They also have lists of how many currently infectious individuals they estimate are wandering about in each state. Our friend in Wyoming may be happy to know that they estimate somewhere between 0 and 1000 in his state, which they round off to 0.

View attachment 475974

Based on how rapidly the infection is spread combined with many infectious people there already are, it looks like the worst places to be are going to be Texas, Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, Arizona, Colorado, and Florida.

Rate of growth probably matters more than which has the highest number at present, so the state on that list that really stands out as having the biggest potential for problems is probably Texas. All of those states would be a good place to avoid for the present time however (assuming flights resume).
I like the simplistic card stacking from ICL played as something meaningful...
much better than your usual ad hominem ad nauseum.

Who doesn't know that areas that have not yet experienced infection are more likely to see their infection percentage jump dramatically when the infection actually reaches their area? Watch out, North Dakota is going to go from 0 to 3000% in a week!

Let's see if we can give the opposite example...

The very first infection in any defined area that hasn't experienced the infection has just increased the infection rate by infinity%.
Every day after that is a long way downhill no matter the number.
 

Latest Threads

Top