Coronavirus (COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2) outbreak discussion

[basilio]

ICYMI, here is what made headlines overnight:

• The coronavirus pandemic "continues to accelerate", with a doubling of cases over the last six weeks
• A genetic mutation that made the new coronavirus more infectious may also make it more vulnerable to vaccines
• More than three-quarters of recently recovered COVID-19 patients had heart muscle problems show up in MRI tests
• The world's biggest COVID-19 vaccine study has entered the later stages of testing
• Indonesia has confirmed more than 100,000 cases of COVID-19, the most in Southeast Asia

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07...ews-covid-19-victoria-daniel-andrews/12497838

 

[IFocus]

I have no doubt @basilio is wearing one, but I would like to see evidence that @rederob and @IFocus are wearing them in their respective states.

I'm in Qld and I see maybe 1/200 wearing one... And absolutely nobody in my local area (outer bogan suburbs).

My outlaws report that it is probably pretty similar in Western Australia.

Photographic evidence will be accepted.

Those that I have seen wearing masks here (WA) have underling health issues that makes catching COV19 certain death.

Having said that the main benefits as I understand is for others (if using surgical mask or lesser) plus some thing not raised it reduces your hand to mouth / nose contact which is critical.

Having had to wear masks most of my working life from SCBA / full face down to P2 (unfortunately not during 70's / early 80's working with asbestos Meso will likely get me one day) I find it incredibly unbelievable that people wont comply for the safety of others but dwell on their own feelings / so called freedoms its quite extraordinary.

I think the governments / health officers advice early when PPE stocks were criticality low and they were trying to gather any stock up to protect front line health staff that masks were not of great benefit has now played into peoples minds that its a waste of time.

The whole thing is purely a numbers probability thing where each step helps build a barrier and reduce the risk (reminds me when writing high voltage isolation plans / permits SP / Smurf will know what I mean). No barrier on its own is the silver bullet but each barrier you put in reduces human failure / circumstances, more barriers less the risk.

I assume the continuing high numbers in Victoria means not enough people are following the rules anyone have a different view on the ground there?

Spooly have seen that before looks very credible.

 

[IFocus]

ICYMI, here is what made headlines overnight:

• The coronavirus pandemic "continues to accelerate", with a doubling of cases over the last six weeks
• A genetic mutation that made the new coronavirus more infectious may also make it more vulnerable to vaccines
• More than three-quarters of recently recovered COVID-19 patients had heart muscle problems show up in MRI tests
• The world's biggest COVID-19 vaccine study has entered the later stages of testing
• Indonesia has confirmed more than 100,000 cases of COVID-19, the most in Southeast Asia

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07...ews-covid-19-victoria-daniel-andrews/12497838

Is the heart thing to do with reduced O2 caused by the virus?

I think going forward if the death rate / infection rate gets of the daily headlines ongoing health issues will come to the fore

 

[SirRumpole]

Those that I have seen wearing masks here (WA) have underling health issues that makes catching COV19 certain death.

May I enquire how you came to that conclusion ?

 

[IFocus]

Not sure how old people are here.

But In my life time I couldn't enter certain countries without being vaccinated for certain diseases Yellow Fever being one.

I still remember the quarantine stations (here in Australia) that people getting off ships had to pass through to control certain diseases coming in to the general population.

I suspect its going to be a return to the past (quarantine areas on entry not hotels in all countries) in a lot of things and those that have lived lets face it protected lives are going to have to toughen up (just a little).

In answer to why we are doing what is happening now?

Its pretty simple and nothing to do with politicians / people / feelings / freedoms / left / right / I don't know pick any argument.

Actions currently taken is from the advice from a very large group of professional experts (who have spent their entire lives working on this stuff not 4 months on facebook / utube) in weighing up the harm / risks / health outcomes not on any one group in the community but the population as a whole.

 

[basilio]

I assume the continuing high numbers in Victoria means not enough people are following the rules anyone have a different view on the ground there?

Not sure about that..
I suspect that the spread of virus in aged care facilities will be extremely hard to contain. Frankly many older/demented people will be unable to tolerate ongoing masks which will be required if they are to be protected or protect others.

The next issue is the spread of the virus in the community. This will be largely driven by the infections of staff in these homes bringing it back to their families and friends. This should be more easily controlled by masks/hygiene.

There is also the situation of hundreds of health care workers infected.

The "masks for everyone" rule is to effectively add some protection to people from picking up the virus from current carriers already out there. It won't be perfect but will certainly play a big role.

 

[wayneL]

Not sure how old people are here.

But In my life time I couldn't enter certain countries without being vaccinated for certain diseases Yellow Fever being one.

I still remember the quarantine stations (here in Australia) that people getting off ships had to pass through to control certain diseases coming in to the general population.

I suspect its going to be a return to the past (quarantine areas on entry not hotels in all countries) in a lot of things and those that have lived lets face it protected lives are going to have to toughen up (just a little).

In answer to why we are doing what is happening now?

Its pretty simple and nothing to do with politicians / people / feelings / freedoms / left / right / I don't know pick any argument.

Actions currently taken is from the advice from a very large group of professional experts (who have spent their entire lives working on this stuff not 4 months on facebook / utube) in weighing up the harm / risks / health outcomes not on any one group in the community but the population as a whole.

Leaving aside true antivaxers, the concern breaks down to risk/reward.

The obvious concern is that the Vax may be more dangerous than the disease.

The equine Hendra Vax is a case in point, it kills many more equines, and causes a crapper load more of severe adverse reactions than those actually affected by Hendra virus.

Hence the class action against Zoetis.

May I remind people of the Thalidomide fiasco of what happens when pharmaceuticals go wrong.

I don't think the great majority of people are anti vaccine but rather anti "safe"vaccine.

When you consider that this virus has a greater than 99% survival rate, and multitudes greater than that when people do not have any comorbidities, the safety of any vaccine must reflect that reality.

In other words a vaccine must have many times lesser effect on humans then the disease, otherwise there is no point to the vaccine.

A vax that is rushed through the process cannot be assures this result, hence the distrust.

The vaccines that you have mentioned in your post do actually reflect this metric, and is the reason for their broad acceptance.

When comparing vaccines to vaccines one must compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges.

 

[basilio]

Leaving aside true antivaxers, the concern breaks down to risk/reward.

The obvious concern is that the Vax may be more dangerous than the disease.

The equine Hendra Vax is a case in point, it kills many more equines, and causes a crapper load more of severe adverse reactions than those actually affected by Hendra virus.

Hence the class action against Zoetis.

May I remind people of the Thalidomide fiasco of what happens when pharmaceuticals go wrong.

I don't think the great majority of people are anti vaccine but rather anti "safe"vaccine.

When you consider that this virus has a greater than 99% survival rate, and multitudes greater than that when people do not have any comorbidities, the safety of any vaccine must reflect that reality.

In other words a vaccine must have many times lesser effect on humans then the disease, otherwise there is no point to the vaccine.

A vax that is rushed through the process cannot be assures this result, hence the distrust.

The vaccines that you have mentioned in your post do actually reflect this metric, and is the reason for their broad acceptance.

When comparing vaccines to vaccines one must compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges.

All makes sense.

I would add however that COVIDS effect on people is not as minimal as you may suggest. In theory the mortality rate is 1%. However there is enough experience now to indicate that longer term effects on people who have had a serious infection is also substantial. I don't believe that can be disregarded.

The query about possible side effects of the vaccine ? Absolutely. And on top of that legitimate concerns about the safeguards in producing the vaccine. One of the worst cases of people affected by a vaccine was when the first Polio vaccines were distributed and one batch was actually infecting people. In this case making a serious mistake and hurting millions of people would be disastrous.

Another valid question would be "How long should testing be done on a range of people to check out possible short and longer term side effects ? " Not an easy one to answer..

I have to say I am surprised at the speed of this development.

 

[wayneL]

All makes sense.

I would add however that COVIDS effect on people is not as minimal as you may suggest. In theory the mortality rate is 1%. However there is enough experience now to indicate that longer term effects on people who have had a serious infection is also substantial. I don't believe that can be disregarded.

The query about possible side effects of the vaccine ? Absolutely. And on top of that legitimate concerns about the safeguards in producing the vaccine. One of the worst cases of people affected by a vaccine was when the first Polio vaccines were distributed and one batch was actually infecting people. In this case making a serious mistake and hurting millions of people would be disastrous.

Another valid question would be "How long should testing be done on a range of people to check out possible short and longer term side effects ? " Not an easy one to answer..

I have to say I am surprised at the speed of this development.

The challenge for we plebeians is deciphering the motives.

It would be pretty cynical to disregard any motive for the greater good, ie saving peoples lives and improving health.

But there is also the profit motive. This will be huge for any company getting a vaccine to market.... *first*.

These two motives are in competition with each other and we are generally not naive, we understand that.

Once again we get back into risk vs reward. It *could be* that people refraining from vaccination may be excluded from certain societal functions. But is that worth the possible, probably unknown side effects?

That, is a really important question.

 

[basilio]

Daniel Andrews has bitten the bullet and decided that private aged care facilities don't have the capacity to effectively deal with COVID 19. Is this a surprise ?

Gutsy call but it seems Morrison is backing him up and the State and Commonwealth governments are jointly working to ensure a better outcome in aged care centres than is currently happening.

Premier Daniel Andrews says he has no confidence in private aged care Covid-19 response

.....Andrews said in facilities where the state government had “no confidence in infection control, where there is no confidence that care can be provided to a suitable standard, then we will do everything we can to move those residents out” and into hospitals.
“I cannot stand here and tell you that I have confidence that staff and management across a number of private sector aged care facilities are able to provide the care that is appropriate to keep their residents safe,” Andrews said.

“If I could say that, I would. We don’t run this sector but the residents in these homes are all Victorians. The commonwealth government have asked for help and that is exactly what my government and our agencies will provide to them.”

....Andrews and Morrison reiterated that the aged care challenge was a shared one governments would need to cooperate on to contain.
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...idence-in-private-aged-care-covid-19-response

 

[SirRumpole]

Daniel Andrews has bitten the bullet and decided that private aged care facilities don't have the capacity to effectively deal with COVID 19. Is this a surprise ?

Gutsy call but it seems Morrison is backing him up and the State and Commonwealth governments are jointly working to ensure a better outcome in aged care centres than is currently happening.

Premier Daniel Andrews says he has no confidence in private aged care Covid-19 response

.....Andrews said in facilities where the state government had “no confidence in infection control, where there is no confidence that care can be provided to a suitable standard, then we will do everything we can to move those residents out” and into hospitals.
“I cannot stand here and tell you that I have confidence that staff and management across a number of private sector aged care facilities are able to provide the care that is appropriate to keep their residents safe,” Andrews said.

“If I could say that, I would. We don’t run this sector but the residents in these homes are all Victorians. The commonwealth government have asked for help and that is exactly what my government and our agencies will provide to them.”

....Andrews and Morrison reiterated that the aged care challenge was a shared one governments would need to cooperate on to contain.
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...idence-in-private-aged-care-covid-19-response

Pity he didn't realise that private security guards in hotel quarantine couldn't do the job either.

 

[IFocus]

Leaving aside true antivaxers, the concern breaks down to risk/reward.

The obvious concern is that the Vax may be more dangerous than the disease.

The equine Hendra Vax is a case in point, it kills many more equines, and causes a crapper load more of severe adverse reactions than those actually affected by Hendra virus.

Hence the class action against Zoetis.

May I remind people of the Thalidomide fiasco of what happens when pharmaceuticals go wrong.

I don't think the great majority of people are anti vaccine but rather anti "safe"vaccine.

When you consider that this virus has a greater than 99% survival rate, and multitudes greater than that when people do not have any comorbidities, the safety of any vaccine must reflect that reality.

In other words a vaccine must have many times lesser effect on humans then the disease, otherwise there is no point to the vaccine.

A vax that is rushed through the process cannot be assures this result, hence the distrust.

The vaccines that you have mentioned in your post do actually reflect this metric, and is the reason for their broad acceptance.

When comparing vaccines to vaccines one must compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges.

Agree re vaccines haven't seen any thing where a case is made for unsafe vaccine deployment not to say it wont happen, I wont be 1st in line along with most I suspect.

The 99% survival rate argument fails to address that's applicable if all hospital required cases are treated and that the system isn't over whelmed preventing treatment for other life threatening conditions.

It also fails to address the longer term implications of the disease that is still largely unknown as there is only around 6 months of clinical experience with the virus.


On a different note re the economy.

The Swedes are repeatedly quoted as the way to keep the economy open compared to its neighbours the numbers now don't back that view.

NYT

"Sweden’s central bank expects its economy to contract by 4.5 percent this year, a revision from a previously expected gain of 1.3 percent. The unemployment rate jumped to 9 percent in May from 7.1 percent in March. “The overall damage to the economy means the recovery will be protracted, with unemployment remaining elevated,” Oxford Economics concluded in a recent research note.

This is more or less how damage caused by the pandemic has played out in Denmark, where the central bank expects that the economy will shrink 4.1 percent this year, and where joblessness has edged up to 5.6 percent in May from 4.1 percent in March.

In short, Sweden suffered a vastly higher death rate while failing to collect on the expected economic gains."

"Norway, on the other hand, was not only quick to impose an aggressive lockdown, but early to relax it as the virus slowed, and as the government ramped up testing. It is now expected to see a more rapid economic turnaround. Norway’s central bank predicts that its mainland economy — excluding the turbulent oil and gas sector — will contract by 3.9 percent this year. That amounts to a marked improvement over the 5.5 percent decline expected in the midst of the lockdown."

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/07/business/sweden-economy-coronavirus.html

 

[Sdajii]

All makes sense.

I would add however that COVIDS effect on people is not as minimal as you may suggest. In theory the mortality rate is 1%. However there is enough experience now to indicate that longer term effects on people who have had a serious infection is also substantial. I don't believe that can be disregarded.

We keep hearing this vague statement being repeated in the media and parroted in social media, without and solid data to back it up. It's much like the reference to some 3 year old kid somewhere in the world who died (obviously omitting to mention the congenital defects the child was born with), being used to say "See? It doesn't just affect old people!"

We literally have over 10 million documented recoveries (and probably many times that number of recoveries who were too mild to be noticed, many of whom didn't even realise they were infected with anything at all). Permanent damage doesn't show up after you're already over it (this is a ridiculous notion so many people are assuming!). Permanent damage is damage which is already done, exists after the virus is out of the system, and won't ever go away. It doesn't first show up after the virus is out of the system then never go away. The worst 10 million cases so far don't show this, yet we still somehow have an insane 'it's too soon to be sure' narrative.

Many people are so quick to hype up hypothetical or even demonstrably fictional problems of the virus, yet discount and actual, tangible problems of the mitigation efforts, or discount any potential hazards of a vaccine. It never makes sense to use a cure or mitigation strategy unless you are sufficiently sure that you are doing significantly more good than harm. Generally people have a firm grasp of this basic concept, but on this issue it has flown straight out the window, put on a disguise then jumped on a train.

 

[IFocus]

A comment from the NYT's above

"

citybumpkin
Earth
July 8
Times Pick


I know people probably feel like a lot is attributed to racism these days. But really, the popular obsession with praising and following Sweden’s model, in contrast with refusal to follow what South Korea or Taiwan has done, makes me wonder. Sweden has 5,447 COVID deaths out of a population less than 10 million. South Korea has 5 times that population but only 285 deaths. And really, if you want comparisons, how people live in the Seoul Metropolitan Area is closer to big American population centers like the New York’s metro region (whose population is bigger than all of Sweden’s.) But why this eternal obsession with all things nordic, and disdain to learn from Asia?
"

 

[basilio]

Pity he didn't realise that private security guards in hotel quarantine couldn't do the job either.

Isn't hindsight wonderful ?

The failure to properly supervise and manage the security around hotels has resulted in a catastrophic outcome. It seems almost all the current outbreaks can be traced back to guards and their families and friends.

I'm certain these possible consequences could have been recognised at the time but clearly "everyone thought some else was taking care of the problem"..

And I also believe that the doctors /epidemiologists who would have expressed these concerns would have been dismissed as alarmists.
Be interesting to see what the investigation reveals about the processes.

 

[SirRumpole]

We keep hearing this vague statement being repeated in the media and parroted in social media, without and solid data to back it up. It's much like the reference to some 3 year old kid somewhere in the world who died (obviously omitting to mention the congenital defects the child was born with), being used to say "See? It doesn't just affect old people!"

I'd suggest that your assumption that a three year old kid who died from covid had co morbidities is just as invalid as assuming they did not.

 

[Sdajii]

I'd suggest that your assumption that a three year old kid who died from covid had co morbidities is just as invalid as assuming they did not.

Either way it's using a statistical anomaly to falsely represent the situation.

 

[basilio]

We keep hearing this vague statement being repeated in the media and parroted in social media, without and solid data to back it up. It's much like the reference to some 3 year old kid somewhere in the world who died (obviously omitting to mention the congenital defects the child was born with), being used to say "See? It doesn't just affect old people!"

We literally have over 10 million documented recoveries (and probably many times that number of recoveries who were too mild to be noticed, many of whom didn't even realise they were infected with anything at all). Permanent damage doesn't show up after you're already over it (this is a ridiculous notion so many people are assuming!). Permanent damage is damage which is already done, exists after the virus is out of the system, and won't ever go away. It doesn't first show up after the virus is out of the system then never go away. The worst 10 million cases so far don't show this, yet we still somehow have an insane 'it's too soon to be sure' narrative.

Many people are so quick to hype up hypothetical or even demonstrably fictional problems of the virus, yet discount and actual, tangible problems of the mitigation efforts, or discount any potential hazards of a vaccine. It never makes sense to use a cure or mitigation strategy unless you are sufficiently sure that you are doing significantly more good than harm. Generally people have a firm grasp of this basic concept, but on this issue it has flown straight out the window, put on a disguise then jumped on a train.

How about some solid Medical Evidence on the ongoing problems many people are facing after infection with COVID 19 ? Worth checking out perhaps ?
Here’s what we know so far about the long-term symptoms of COVID-19
July 27, 2020 5.56am AEST
Peter Wark
Conjoint Professor, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle

https://theconversation.com/heres-w...out-the-long-term-symptoms-of-covid-19-142722

 

[rederob]

We keep hearing this vague statement being repeated in the media and parroted in social media, without and solid data to back it up.

It's a bit early to get peer reviewed science backing up what doctors are finding, but here's one small scale study. It would be unusual for the Italian study to be unique given a wealth of anecdotal information suggesting a wide variety of symptoms.

The worst 10 million cases so far don't show this, yet we still somehow have an insane 'it's too soon to be sure' narrative.

No evidence!

It never makes sense to use a cure or mitigation strategy unless you are sufficiently sure that you are doing significantly more good than harm. Generally people have a firm grasp of this basic concept, but on this issue it has flown straight out the window, put on a disguise then jumped on a train.

Again, just a guess. So far that's all you have done regarding vaccine candidates.

 

[Sdajii]

How about some solid Medical Evidence on the ongoing problems many people are facing after infection with COVID 19 ? Worth checking out perhaps ?
Here’s what we know so far about the long-term symptoms of COVID-19
July 27, 2020 5.56am AEST
Peter Wark
Conjoint Professor, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle

https://theconversation.com/heres-w...out-the-long-term-symptoms-of-covid-19-142722

Simply posting a link doesn't mean that link contains what you claim it to!

There isn't anything in the link which says anything like 'X percent of recovered patients have X, Y and Z permanent issues'. It's all very vague, it's clearly just scaremongering.