Jump to content

Coronavirus

Xd the great

By Xd the great
in Science & Spaceflight

 Share

Recommended Posts

HansonKerman

HansonKerman

Posted
Posted
On 4/3/2020 at 8:22 AM, Superfluous J said:

"Outbreak in hot sauna bath!"

Who knew that conditions similar to the inside of the Human Body would be good for a virus that attacks humans!

Oh, right. Everybody.

like... jeez, how do people come up with this stuff. 
wash ur hands

eat healthy

don't get too close to sick people (6ft)

keep calm

dont panic

stay home

Play KSP

Link to comment
Share on other sites
magnemoe

magnemoe

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, tater said:

https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1375

4/5 cases asymptomatic

 

Question this as health workers are tested regularly. Yes for most its just an flue but we should get the same result on them. 
Makes me wonder why can not nurses who have the disease work on patients who also have it as long as they are well enough to go to work, one the once who is past it. 
Yes its probably serious logistic problems as its lots of types of nurses, from intensive care ones down to the licensed nurses and you have doctors too and you have to separate the ones have it and not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tater

tater

Posted
Posted
46 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

Question this as health workers are tested regularly. Yes for most its just an flue but we should get the same result on them. 
Makes me wonder why can not nurses who have the disease work on patients who also have it as long as they are well enough to go to work, one the once who is past it. 
Yes its probably serious logistic problems as its lots of types of nurses, from intensive care ones down to the licensed nurses and you have doctors too and you have to separate the ones have it and not. 

Health workers aren't tested for COVID-19 any more than anyone else that I know about. The screening at the hospital for staff right now is they take your temp, and they ask a couple questions like "Do you have a new cough?" As for flu? Almost no one gets tested for flu, ever. The number of positive, tested flu cases per year in the US is under 1.5% of actual flu cases.

I agree on maybe letting people work sick, assuming it's mild, I suppose, but viral load can also matter, and they'd need to be separated from their uninfected coworkers. I tend to think the only way this ends is herd immunity.

The testing we need immediately is a pinprick blood test for antibodies.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Laie

Laie

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, tater said:

The testing we need immediately is a pinprick blood test for antibodies.

Yeah, wouldn't it be nice?

I sincerely hope that someone is working on it, or on other measures that will allow for population-wide screening. Otherwise we'll be sitting in quarantine until vaccinated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tater

tater

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Laie said:

Yeah, wouldn't it be nice?

I sincerely hope that someone is working on it, or on other measures that will allow for population-wide screening. Otherwise we'll be sitting in quarantine until vaccinated.

It already exists, just needs to be scaled up and distributed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fulgur

fulgur

Posted
Posted
16 hours ago, tater said:

pinprick blood test for antibodies.

This may just be the one in the news in the UK, but I thought that the test with antibodies was testing for the antibodies themselves. Since antibodies appear as part of the response to an infection, I thought that that test was to find out which healthcare workers had already had it, and were immune. Of course, you can have tests which use antibodies to detect pathogens, but I'm not sure if the widely publicised test (in UK news, such as the announcement that NHS workers were to be tested in the workplace, even if asymptomatic) can test for new infections, but rather tests for the immune system's response to it. Which is still useful, of course

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tater

tater

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, fulgur said:

This may just be the one in the news in the UK, but I thought that the test with antibodies was testing for the antibodies themselves. Since antibodies appear as part of the response to an infection, I thought that that test was to find out which healthcare workers had already had it, and were immune. Of course, you can have tests which use antibodies to detect pathogens, but I'm not sure if the widely publicised test (in UK news, such as the announcement that NHS workers were to be tested in the workplace, even if asymptomatic) can test for new infections, but rather tests for the immune system's response to it. Which is still useful, of course

Yes, serological antibody tests test for people who have had a disease, and now have antibodies for it (recovered people).

This is useful as a random test, because it is trivial to do (pinprick), fast, and when we know the rough % of people who have been previously exposed and have some immunity, we can understand what the ACTUAL number of cases might be like.

There is every chance that you could take the number of confirmed cases and multiply by 10-100. My gut still says the ascertainment rate is going to be very, very low (the % of cases in the wild that were ever tested positive). As a reality check, the ascertainment rate for flu in the US is ~1.5% (the % of people who actually had the flu who were tested for flu). If we did the CFR for seasonal flu the way we do it right now for COVID-19, the CFR would be 10% for flu.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GDJ

GDJ

Posted
Posted
21 hours ago, HansonKerman said:

I  wonder why. Like... jeez. Who comes up with this stuff??? “Wash your hands with vodka... etc”

Frick if I know. Stupidity comes in all flavours. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tater

tater

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

Well fudge.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/02/health/aerosol-coronavirus-spread-white-house-letter/index.html

Yeah, well if that is the case and via incidental contact like at the store, then the % of people infected must be very large. Like seasonal flu large. If true, the infection fatality rate is going to be very much closer to flu. I don't think aerosol is a major factor for incidental transmission. Maybe breathing out viral bodies can infect the person you sleep next to, but from what I have read family members on average only get infected ~10% of the time.

Like a lot of viruses, some particular hosts are super spreaders. For whatever reason they are virus factories. 100 people can be just as far into an infection, and 1 of them might shed more virus than all the rest of them.

Regarding projection, IHME finally updated their model. The usage is a little closer to reality, but for the days that have already happened it overstates use (though the use is still in the uncertainty for NY, which is nice.

https://covid19.healthdata.org/projections

For NM it says we should have 335 beds in use (today), and 57 ICU beds. We have 45 beds in use (total). There might be a couple people in the unit. So it's only off by an order of magnitude :confused:. They project we don't go over on beds, and we need 2X available ICU beds. Ignoring the fact we won't if our use stays 10X below their model, they also don't seem to know that our ICU beds is double the number they have available (cancelled elective cases with the surgical ICUs all available for med ICU, literally doubling capacity with no other interventions and the general surgeons have been told they might be pressed into critical care if that became a thing).

 

 

Edited by tater
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDE

DDE

Posted
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, tater said:

Don't be obese.

:0.0:

Next you'll start shaming people for, how did MovieBob put it? "Basement apartments".

Edited by DDE
Link to comment
Share on other sites
kerbiloid

kerbiloid

Posted
Posted (edited)

That was not a really body positive speech from the people who even don't eat (as much as we do) the really healthy and storable food, the buckwheat. :(

(That's why we are so nice and clever, btw.)

The mother of all foods.

Edited by kerbiloid
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Space_Coyote

Space_Coyote

Posted
Posted

Well it seems the virus can jump between humans and animals now.. Case in Point, from the Bronx Zoo.

One of  the tigers in the Bronx zoo got tested Positive to  COVID-19

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52177586

The reason I say this now is because of the fact that if it can be transmitted to other animals , then this world might lose a few species of animals if it gets into the endangered animals..

 

So yeah, way to go Humans, we're now wipping out sentire speicies of Animals..

 

Space_Coyote

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tater

tater

Posted
Posted
46 minutes ago, Space_Coyote said:

Well it seems the virus can jump between humans and animals now.. Case in Point, from the Bronx Zoo.

One of  the tigers in the Bronx zoo got tested Positive to  COVID-19

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52177586

The reason I say this now is because of the fact that if it can be transmitted to other animals , then this world might lose a few species of animals if it gets into the endangered animals..

So yeah, way to go Humans, we're now wipping out sentire speicies of Animals..

 

1. Viruses do this all the time, and it was a virus jumping from a bat to a human that caused this in the first place (thanks, China!).

2. The paper I posted up the thread about house cats getting this in Wuhan said that the cats don't seem to get badly sick (at least their 102 subjects didn't).

3. The fatality rate of COVID-19 is very small, not enough to lose any species. When all this settles down I'm still thinking it's like 0.5% mortality (maybe lower), with mortality mostly for the very old. Since wild animals are not obese/diabetic/smokers/etc, I bet the mortality in animals is even lower than 0.5%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...