SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)
- Thread starter Don't Kill Bill
- Start date
Is there any explanation on why it seems almost non existent in Africa?
Also Russia, is it a case they are simply not testing or choosing not to reveal any cases?
Also Russia, is it a case they are simply not testing or choosing not to reveal any cases?
Africa it could be temperature but it could also be that they aren't testing. I think there were some cases in Nigeria.
The temperature thing isn't proven but it is believed that it struggles in warm climates
Russia closed borders very early (my Russian colleague told me so). Probably also less tests in order to keep the numbers artificially low.
Africa (and South America) is a weird case. No idea if they are not doing tests, if they have less travel with other countries, or a matter of climate. Probably a combination of things. If it is about the weather, then that is amazing news.
There are around a 100 cases in Africa
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world/af...6717688d956f0669ae3f58&pinned_post_type=share
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world/af...6717688d956f0669ae3f58&pinned_post_type=share
I was thinking that, but then what about the cases in the Canary Islands and parts of America with high temps?
Maybe it needs to be quite hot to be weakened. Like mid to high 30s
Well that’s Ireland fecked
Yeah, I wouldn't usually express myself that way, it was gnarly.
I am speaking from my impression of what is happening in Portugal and projecting a bit because this is a global world after all.
Surely, as an Irishman, you have the realization that when we work in these areas in smallish countries, it's not that unlikely to at least know who the people on the top are, and somethimes you can even know their stqnces in certain things, etc, depending of course on your personal connections and work experience.
Many close friends of mine both in politics and public health suspect that top advisors of the government are divided on this in my country (urgency vs wait-a-bit), but their opinons are growing closer and closer to each other and the urgency side. It may just be that some were quicker to look into this. After all there are many busy people at this level too, it may be shocking but perhaps not surprising that a few are behind.
Every newspiece released in the last 24 hours here seem to point to this. They're pulling out more and more restrictions as we speak.
Na we are an island with very little urban sprawl outside of Dublin etc. When we get a hold of it we should be in a comfortable position.
Thank God for Boris and his sea border
Yeah, I think opinions are definitely divided. The main argument against going in hard and early is about some sort of “rule fatigue” setting in and people starting to get more and more lax about modulating their behaviour over time. Which could fuel a late surge in cases. Then there’s the economic hardship from a lengthy lockdown. And a really deep nasty recession has its own (not insignificant) mortality rate. So I don’t think there are any easy, obvious decisions to make. We’re literally making this up as we go along. I do seem to have a bit more faith in the advisers our government are working with than you do. But I’ve always been someone who instinctively defers to authority. Probably my inner “out-dated boomer” coming out!
You are right. I am not sure but it looks like there are 317 awaiting results.
Fair enough. Good of you to check anyway
11 cases in Lima and 2 italian tourists have just been tested positive in a hotel right next to the Spa hotel in Paracas me and the missus go once a month so we'll not be booking it for a while.
Come to Florida. We may have meth’d up Florida Man, alligators that chill in your pool, and annual hurricanes, but Coronavirus will die here.
Hope you are right
im usually a very grounded type person and have no time for hysteria. I have gone from scoffing at people 2 weeks ago talking about hoarding pasta and tinned foods to being a little hysterical about it myself. I can’t stop looking for updates and reading about it on social media and forums like this. And it’s so easy to go down that rabbit hole
For what it's worth, the below is from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control's "Guide to public health measures to reduce the impact of influenza pandemics in Europe" from 2009:
"Though early implementation of measures is logical, application of the more disruptive interventions too early will be costly and may make them hard to sustain."
So the idea that there's danger in applying difficult measures too early isn't just something that our murderous governments have made up. Who'd have thought?
All public health measures have costs and many also have secondary effects. The secondary effects of most measures can be considerable and many will require careful consideration. The more drastic societal measures that have been suggested (e.g. proactive school closures and travel restrictions) have significant costs and consequences that will themselves vary by their setting. These are also difficult to sustain. Hence for ordinary seasonal influenza or a mild pandemic their application, and especially their early application, could be more damaging than just allowing the infection to run its course and treating those with more severe illness.
Some of the measures are relatively straightforward to implement and are already recommended for even mild seasonal influenza (e.g. regular hand-washing and early self-isolation when developing a febrile illness). These also have the advantage of empowering individuals and giving them useful advice at a difficult and worrying time. Others are going to be difficult to implement or are too costly (e.g. timely mass use of antivirals by those becoming sick) and others are potentially highly disruptive to societal functions and difficult to sustain (e.g. border closures, internal transport restrictions). Therefore all the measures require Planning, Preparation and Practice.
The point about costly and disruptive measures is crucial. During a pandemic with lesser severe disease and of fewer falling sick, such as those seen in 1957 and 1968, some possible community measures (proactive school closures, home working, etc.), though probably reducing transmission, can be more costly and disruptive than the effects of the pandemic itself. Hence such measures may only have a net benefit if implemented during a severe pandemic, for example one that results in high hospitalisation rates or has a case fatality rate comparable to that of the 1918–19 ‘Spanish flu’.
For these reasons, early assessment of the clinical severity of a pandemic globally and in European settings will be crucial. Though early implementation of measures is logical, application of the more disruptive interventions too early will be costly and may make them hard to sustain.
Some of the measures are relatively straightforward to implement and are already recommended for even mild seasonal influenza (e.g. regular hand-washing and early self-isolation when developing a febrile illness). These also have the advantage of empowering individuals and giving them useful advice at a difficult and worrying time. Others are going to be difficult to implement or are too costly (e.g. timely mass use of antivirals by those becoming sick) and others are potentially highly disruptive to societal functions and difficult to sustain (e.g. border closures, internal transport restrictions). Therefore all the measures require Planning, Preparation and Practice.
The point about costly and disruptive measures is crucial. During a pandemic with lesser severe disease and of fewer falling sick, such as those seen in 1957 and 1968, some possible community measures (proactive school closures, home working, etc.), though probably reducing transmission, can be more costly and disruptive than the effects of the pandemic itself. Hence such measures may only have a net benefit if implemented during a severe pandemic, for example one that results in high hospitalisation rates or has a case fatality rate comparable to that of the 1918–19 ‘Spanish flu’.
For these reasons, early assessment of the clinical severity of a pandemic globally and in European settings will be crucial. Though early implementation of measures is logical, application of the more disruptive interventions too early will be costly and may make them hard to sustain.
"Though early implementation of measures is logical, application of the more disruptive interventions too early will be costly and may make them hard to sustain."
So the idea that there's danger in applying difficult measures too early isn't just something that our murderous governments have made up. Who'd have thought?
From the first 2,500 cases in Italy:
Infections:
0-18 - 0%
19-50 - 10% (5-7% under 30)
51-70 - 46%
Most people get symptoms 4-7 days after exposure, if you don't have symptoms after 12 days you are unlikely to get them but you may still be able to infect others. They also said its up to young people to stop this as they are the ones spreading it the most.
Infections:
0-18 - 0%
19-50 - 10% (5-7% under 30)
51-70 - 46%
Most people get symptoms 4-7 days after exposure, if you don't have symptoms after 12 days you are unlikely to get them but you may still be able to infect others. They also said its up to young people to stop this as they are the ones spreading it the most.
No news infections in Codogno which was one of the first towns to have an outbreak in Italy, hopefully it's a good sign.
Yep, "such measures" in that context referring to measures such as proactive school closures and working from home. Which is exactly what's happening on a phased basis, based on the ongoing assessment of the experts our governments are working with.
Varadkar: "I want to assure the public that all actions being taken by government have been taken on the advice of the experts, National Public Health Emergency Team ... led by the Chief Medical Officer, and informed by guidance from the World Health Organisation and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Every action that they’ve recommended has been taken today. And every day we asked the experts: Is there more that we should do? But they remind us of the need to make the right interventions at the right time for the right length of time, because anything else could be counterproductive."
That's just a lot of fluff. Unless evidence is offered for the said claim, I can call it bullshit. The burden of proof is not on me. You're saying I should have evidence for my skepticism because the claim I'm doubting was put forward by chief medical/science officers for these countries. Need I even point out the classic fallacy here? Besides, a government health minister is probably one of the last people I would trust on anything science related.Well, yes I suppose I am?
I mean the chief medical and science officers of these countries have put this argument forward, you've stated that their argument is bullshit and that you can't believe people have fallen for it.
Which means either A) You've decided that these particular medical/science experts are wrong about a complicated medical/science issue based on absolutely nothing but your own gut opinion, or B) you have at some point encountered some information of some type which suggests to you that they are wrong.
Assuming A) isn't the case, it's hardly outlandish of me to wonder what information has prompted such a strident opinion.
I mean you're right, I absolutely don't understand how science works, this particularly complicated area of science in particular. Which is exactly why I'm asking for some evidence to read. Which I assumed you'd be in a position to provide given you're so much more assured of your own grasp of the science behind all of this.
Not that I've seen. If anyone could point to their evidence too that would be great. Mostly all I've seen are random opinions on an issue that (I can only assume) has been subject to a fair amount of research over the years.
Heh - from the coronavirus briefing being given just now:
He has no idea what's going on. You can't bluff your way through this with a slogan.Heh - from the coronavirus briefing being given just now:
I am unsure about the stories of Lombardy being totally overwhelmed in that respect. Some hospitals are seriously struggling but the region as a whole has just over 1,000 ICU beds, and another 150 coming in the next few days. Total ICU cases are still under 500 - although other people need the beds too. The problem seems to be getting the right people to the right places in enough time to save them, and getting enough doctors to care for them. 10-15% of cases are medical staff.
All this talk of ICU capacity makes me wonder though why all of them need to be in the ICU. I assume most aren't considered extremely high risk cases. Heart monitoring can be done outside the ICU as well these days.
Yeah, like you say I guess it depends on specific area and what number of ICU's were already in demand without the added stress of this outbreak.
I think the one optimistic thing coming out of the US is the level of action being taken at the level of the states themselves and the individual institutions within them. There seems to be a growing number of examples of schools/unis/companies etc proactively instituting work from home policies and the like. It's piecemeal, but at least it's something. The White House is just flat useless.
In Italy now i think ICU means ICU. People going there are in respiratory failure and need to be artificially oxygenated. If you just need heart monitoring you're in the corridor.
My gym definitely isn't emptying out. Business as usual tbh. For now anyway.
They’re in the ICU to be put on ventilators. Which is the only way to manage anyone who starts to tip into ARDS (which seems to be as high as 5 to 10% of cases)
In
Interesting. I remember reading a study they did here in the US and it showed hospitals more readily admitting patients to the ICU performed considerably worse than those that didn't. Can't remember the exact reasoning for it. Of course these are unusual circumstances however.
Being sceptical about a claim isn't quite the same as asserting that a claim is such outright bullshit that you can't believe people even believe it.
I also wasn't making an appeal to authority as I wasn't asserting that they were correct. I was acknowledging that they undoubtedly have more expertise in the area than you do, then asking for evidence for your own assertions that might undermine their arguments.
As for evidence for their claims, see my above posts for the advice of the ECDC that these governments are basing their decisions on. Unless the ECDC are also people you don't trust on science.
Nadine Dorris (British MP) has tested positive.
We have an oral thermometer that I also use for the dog's bum. I don't use it personally but I'm more than happy to let everyone else use it and not tell them about what that strange taste is.Oral or rectal ()?
30 years of isolation should do it.
And they say global warming is a bad thing...
It would be hypocritical as feck if they shut down parliament after just this morning reiterating that nothing is going to change across the country for the foreseeable future. But that hasn't stopped them in the past so hey ho.
Hope Boris washed his hands.