Damn are you saying those with anaemia are more vulnerable to this, or do you mean those with both malaria and anaemia?
SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)
- Thread starter Don't Kill Bill
- Start date
Damn are you saying those with anaemia are more vulnerable to this, or do you mean those with both malaria and anaemia?
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.
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!
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?
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.
This. Think they said the earliest they'll have a vaccine will be early-mid 2021.
Yes but I'm not a doctor/biologist/immunologist.
That is far far higher than any other reports I've read. If it is anywhere near that our hospital systems are fecked.
I think this is the best we can hope for, at this stage.
On what do you base this assertion?
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.
Same reason as the USA. The $$$ co-efficient played a much bigger role in the models.
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.
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.
wouldn't surprise me if they tried to use this as a bargaining chip towards going independent. Quebec people are very, very weird.
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.
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.
Bastards. Just because they are more or less beyond the reach of natural selection doesn't mean others are.
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.
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.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2002032
Table 1. You’ll need to calculate the %s for yourself.
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.
Whether these figures are totally accurate or not is up for debate. But...
| Country, Other | Total Cases | Active Cases | Tot Cases/ 1M pop |
|---|---|---|---|
| Italy | 15,113 | 12,839 | 250.0 |
| S. Korea | 7,869 | 7,470 | 153.5 |
| Norway | 800 | 798 | 147.6 |
| Iran | 10,075 | 6,370 | 120.0 |
| Denmark | 674 | 673 | 116.4 |
| Bahrain | 197 | 162 | 115.8 |
| Switzerland | 868 | 857 | 100.3 |
| Qatar | 262 | 262 | 90.9 |
| Sweden | 687 | 685 | 68.0 |
| Spain | 3,146 | 2,871 | 67.3 |
| China | 80,796 | 14,791 | 56.1 |
| Slovenia | 96 | 96 | 46.2 |
| France | 2,876 | 2,803 | 44.1 |
| Austria | 361 | 356 | 40.1 |
| Netherlands | 614 | 607 | 35.8 |
| Belgium | 399 | 395 | 34.4 |
| Germany | 2,745 | 2,714 | 32.8 |
| Singapore | 187 | 91 | 32.0 |
| Estonia | 27 | 27 | 20.4 |
| Finland | 109 | 108 | 19.7 |
| Kuwait | 80 | 75 | 18.7 |
| Hong Kong | 130 | 50 | 17.3 |
| Ireland | 70 | 69 | 14.2 |
| Israel | 109 | 105 | 12.6 |
| Greece | 117 | 116 | 11.2 |
| Czechia | 113 | 113 | 10.6 |
| Lebanon | 68 | 64 | 10.0 |
| UK | 590 | 562 | 8.7 |
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.
Edit: Have no idea how he popped up on my TL.
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.
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.
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?
Do you have any idea how many tourists visit London?
In Minnesota if you are insured through the State Health Exchange called MNSure, testing, co pays and treatment costs are all covered by the state.
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.
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.
Ireland going early as Varadkar wants to appear as if he's doing something. Political choice rather than science based.
Aren’t you reading this wrong under the table it says the primary end point is intensive care, ventilator or death and there’s 12 people in that age range?