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

[Smurf1976]

So do we move forward, accept the new reality or believe that someone we are greater than nature itself.

There's going to be a huge reluctance to do that if it involves permanent change in a manner which renders some activities and the associated capital tied up in them obsolete.

Has there ever in the past been a situation to we can immunize 6 Billion people? no

Same could be said for every single thing ever done.

Just 15 years ago we'd never had a situation where pretty much everyone, or even a minority of the population for that matter, carried a computer in their pocket. And yet we managed to design and manufacture a huge number of smartphones and build out the 4G network within a relatively short time.

Or for a more mundane example, in the very recent past the day's news was all typed up and formatted to suit a physical publication of which millions were printed and distributed to pretty much everyone not once, but literally every single day. Distributed by means of being sold in shops, commonly as the only item purchased and the only reason the customer went into the shop, or even simply thrown out the window of a moving car onto the lawn. To some extent that industry still exists today albeit declining.

If a vaccine were developed then the notion that it couldn't be produced and administered to everyone seems rather strange. With literally $ billions at stake, it would be odd if nobody was able to get the production, logistics and administering of it sorted out.

 

[Smurf1976]

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.

Plenty of things where that isn't the case.

Health impacts from asbestos exposure for example tend to show up several decades after the exposure itself.

Smoking, poor diet, high levels of alcohol consumption, lack of exercise etc likewise tend to have no real effect for 20+ years but ultimately the majority end up with some level of impact on their life and many of them end up dead.

Radiation's another one. Unless you get enough to cause immediate radiation sickness then for anyone else it's something that kills you many years after the exposure and we can never be certain exactly who died from it and who was going to get cancer anyway. What we do know is that it leads to an excess of cancer cases.

HIV is another one and perhaps closer to the point. Takes quite some years after infection for any real symptoms to show up at least in some victims. Using perhaps the most famous example, Freddie Mercury, well there seems to be a rough consensus that he was most likely infected sometime in the late 1970's although obviously that isn't known with certainty. He was still very much alive in 1985 for the Live Aid concert, was diagnosed in 1987 and passed away in 1991. That's quite some lag time for the effects and he almost certainly isn't the longest, just someone very well known.

 

[Smurf1976]

Tasmania is literally an island with a small population with low population density.

Perth (or the Perth region) is effectively an island.

Not only to Melbourne and Sydney both have populations each of which are multiples of Perth's, they both are surrounded by many other cities, interspersed by countless small towns. Perth on the other hand is by far Australia's most remote capital.

Population of Tasmania = 515,000 and very decentralised (only ~40% liver within commuting distance of Hobart).

Population of Perth = 2,042,0000. Population of the rest of WA is 547,000.

Population of Melbourne = 4,936,000. Population of the rest of Victoria is 1,423,000.

Those city figures are for the "greater" city so that's anywhere that anyone's going to commute from, it's not simply the technical definition of the city proper.

Tasmania is clearly very different as is regional WA but Perth and Melbourne aren't drastically different. A city of just over 2 million with people coming and going from an assortment of towns in the south-west of WA versus a city of just under 5 million with people coming and going from regional Victoria.

One's larger than the other but only a bit over double, it's not several orders of magnitude or anything like that. It's akin to comparing a 737 with a 747. They're both large aircraft, we're not comparing the 747 to a single engine Cessna or a helicopter.

There may well be reasons why it can't be done but conceptually, well if something has been done apparently quite easily in a city of 2 million then it seems somewhat pessimistic to assume it can't be done at all in a city of 5 million. It's a biggert task but we're talking about 2.5 times the size not 250 times the size. etc.

If it can't in fact be done well then that does raise one plausible long term outcome of this. Cities exceeding a certain size may well be simply too large and too much of a risk for this or indeed any country to have. If they're prone to uncontrollable pandemics then that's not an unreasonable conclusion, especially in a world where due to technology there's less need to have huge numbers of people in the one place anyway.

If so, well that's one very major change economically.

 

[Sdajii]

Plenty of things where that isn't the case.

Health impacts from asbestos exposure for example tend to show up several decades after the exposure itself.

Smoking, poor diet, high levels of alcohol consumption, lack of exercise etc likewise tend to have no real effect for 20+ years but ultimately the majority end up with some level of impact on their life and many of them end up dead.

Broadly speaking, asbestos causes two types of damage. One only shows up after a long period of *continued exposure*, the other is cancer.

Smoking is very similar in this way. If you continuously smoke you will continue to do damage to your lungs, but once you stop that damage will not continue to get worse, it will only get better. Unless you get cancer (as with asbestos).

Same with alcohol. It only takes many years to cause liver damage etc because you are continually putting alcohol into your body during those years.

Radiation's another one. Unless you get enough to cause immediate radiation sickness then for anyone else it's something that kills you many years after the exposure and we can never be certain exactly who died from it and who was going to get cancer anyway. What we do know is that it leads to an excess of cancer cases.

Again, radiation sickness is cumulative except for the cancer risk.

HIV is another one and perhaps closer to the point. Takes quite some years after infection for any real symptoms to show up at least in some victims. Using perhaps the most famous example, Freddie Mercury, well there seems to be a rough consensus that he was most likely infected sometime in the late 1970's although obviously that isn't known with certainty. He was still very much alive in 1985 for the Live Aid concert, was diagnosed in 1987 and passed away in 1991. That's quite some lag time for the effects and he almost certainly isn't the longest, just someone very well known.

That's because HIV is permanently in the body! If this virus was also incurable and stayed with infected people permanently I would very much be saying that we have a very serious chance of developing continually increasing problems, or some sudden onset problems in the future! If it's literally a short term respiratory infection it's literally very safe to say that once it is eliminated from the body it stops doing further damage! Other than trivial exceptions, if you stop drinking or smoking or breathing in asbestos you get no further damage from these things other than potential cancer risk, particularly from smoking and asbestos. If HIV infections only lasted a month or so, HIV would be a trivial virus none of us would care about. It would possibly not even be known to medical science and most normal people would definitely not know about it. If you breathe in asbestos once it's almost certainly going to do you no harm, just like smoking for a month won't be an issue, or a one month alcohol issue wouldn't be a serious health concern for more than a trivial number of people. All of these things are very rarely serious problems unless they are ongoing for many years.

 

[Sdajii]

Population of Tasmania = 515,000 and very decentralised (only ~40% liver within commuting distance of Hobart).

Population of Perth = 2,042,0000. Population of the rest of WA is 547,000.

Population of Melbourne = 4,936,000. Population of the rest of Victoria is 1,423,000.

Those city figures are for the "greater" city so that's anywhere that anyone's going to commute from, it's not simply the technical definition of the city proper.

So yes, these are all very convincing arguments for why Melbourne/Victoria is tremendously more challenging than the other places.

Tasmania is clearly very different as is regional WA but Perth and Melbourne aren't drastically different.

Not drastically different??? Melbourne is literally more than double the size! I'm about 90kg. If you put me in a fight with a 45 year old middle school student, are we significantly different?

The challenges associated with viruses become geometrically (ie, literally exponentially) more difficult with increased size, and you're talking about well over double the size! Plus, Melbourne has many towns and cities all around it, while Perth doesn't have anything like the same situation. Additionally, Perth has a population density of 295 people/km², while melbourne has over 500! Again, the difference in difficulty varies geometrically with population density and Melbourne's density is dramatically higher. Compound these two factors together, plus add in the surrounding town structure, plus Melbourne's demographic differences, and you're looking at something orders of magnitude more difficult in Melbourne.

One's larger than the other but only a bit over double, it's not several orders of magnitude or anything like that.

That one single factor is a lot more than double (50% more!) and the challenges don't increase arithmetically, they increase geometrically, meaning that yes, the challenge is orders of magnitude greater, especially when you factor in all the other issues of Melbourne.

It's akin to comparing a 737 with a 747. They're both large aircraft, we're not comparing the 747 to a single engine Cessna or a helicopter.

The comparison literally is much more like a single engine Cessna and a 737 than a 737 to a 747.

There may well be reasons why it can't be done but conceptually, well if something has been done apparently quite easily in a city of 2 million then it seems somewhat pessimistic to assume it can't be done at all in a city of 5 million.

If a realistic analysis gives a negative answer, it's just realistic, not pessimistic.

If it can't in fact be done well then that does raise one plausible long term outcome of this. Cities exceeding a certain size may well be simply too large and too much of a risk for this or indeed any country to have. If they're prone to uncontrollable pandemics then that's not an unreasonable conclusion, especially in a world where due to technology there's less need to have huge numbers of people in the one place anyway.

Population size is only one factor. Density, hygiene standards, climate, religion and culture, ethnicity, building materials, government type, geography, local wildlife and many others play important roles, and which pathogen spreads more easily varies differently with each variable. For some examples, this one seems to like cold climates, but others prefer warm climates. This one doesn't seem to use animals as vectors, but many other pathogens do. The amount of physical contact required to spread a disease changes population size and density importance (eg if it's something like HIV it doesn't make anywhere near as much difference, but if it's something like this virus it's one of the most important things, and population size and density are among the absolute most important).

I doubt we're going to see a limit on city sizes for this reason, but it's conceivable at some point in the distant future.

 

[IFocus]

Broadly speaking, asbestos causes two types of damage. One only shows up after a long period of *continued exposure*, the other is cancer.

To help you out....again.

You have asbestos and mesothelioma.

Asbestos kills you sooner due to scaring of the lungs (for want of a better description) silicosis is similar, an example is the underground miners in Bolivia Potosí Silver Mines average age around 36 years old although I did meet one miner they called superman 54 years old but only one.

Mesothelioma is one fibre penetrating the lunge wall used to be mean time of 28 years to death no survivors.

 

[IFocus]

Vaccine, can we get the current efforts in perspective.

Not aware in the history of humans of such an effort, money, resources, urgency, number of experts, expectations by as many, number of countries, blah blah as being directed into finding a vaccine for COV19.

Never, hence I do expect great things just not sure of the time frame or effectiveness but it will come.

I think its impossible to judge from pass efforts as the current efforts are very much unprecedented.

 

[Smurf1976]

You have asbestos and mesothelioma.

Asbestos kills you sooner due to scaring of the lungs (for want of a better description) silicosis is similar, an example is the underground miners in Bolivia Potosí Silver Mines average age around 36 years old although I did meet one miner they called superman 54 years old but only one.

I'm no doctor but I've done a few sets of training on it from different perspectives.

Employer provided, union run and TAFE as three completely separate things. I don't have a need for it so didn't get one but I've done the training for a removalists' licence ("A" Class) too.

They all say much the same:

*Every single person has had some exposure due to background environmental contamination.

*The more exposure you have, and the longer it's inside you (that is, how long you live after it goes in since it never comes back out that's the problem) then the greater the chance it ends badly. Once it's in, it's there and doing damage.

*Genetics appears to play a major factor although there's uncertainty as to the detail. It is established fact however that two people with comparable levels of exposure may have very different outcomes.

The practical aspect of that is that there's no certainty as to the consequences of any individual being exposed. What can be said though is that the greater the level of exposure someone receives, and the younger they are when it occurs, the greater the chance that they live long enough to end up with problems because of it.

It's a statistical probability thing basically. No certainties but x level of exposure results in a certain set of statistical probabilities as to what happens.

Whilst it's not a virus, it's certainly an example of a health issue where being exposed in 2020 could cripple you in 2050 and kill you in 2055. In the meantime, well you'll feel just fine.

 

[wayneL]

This is part of a longer video where this group of doctors is talking. YouTube and Facebook have taken the videos down and and now only resides on Bitchute, easy to find under health and medicine

 

[wayneL]

 

[Sdajii]

*The more exposure you have, and the longer it's inside you (that is, how long you live after it goes in since it never comes back out that's the problem) then the greater the chance it ends badly. Once it's in, it's there and doing damage.

See, here's the big difference. Your words here: "Once it's in, it's there and doing damage" - contrast with any virus. Once it's eliminated, it's gone and no longer doing damage.

Contrast with your HIV/AIDS example: Once it's in, you never, ever get rid of it. It's there for life, continuing to do damage. Coronaviruses aren't chronic diseases which last a lifetime, they leave your system within weeks, not the rest of your life (unless the rest of your life is only a couple of weeks or so).

 

[sptrawler]

If Clive Palmer wins the high court case against the W.A hard border closure, I wonder how Queensland, S.A and Tasmania will keep theirs intact?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07...y-to-win-wa-border-challenge-pm-says/12501872

 

[basilio]

After two days of following the medical script on dealing with COVID 19 (it's real, it's serious, wear a mask) Trump decided to let his instincts take over.
Some seriously crazy stuff in this story.

Donald Trump is talking about hydroxychloroquine again because of a viral video filled with coronavirus misinformation
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07...ychloroquine-again-after-viral-video/12501634

 

[rederob]

This is part of a longer video where this group of doctors is talking. YouTube and Facebook have taken the videos down and and now only resides on Bitchute, easy to find under health and medicine

Are they doctors?
What hospital do they represent?
What evidence was offered?
There remains zero evidence the claims were true.
There is a lot of evidence that the promoters did well, as it is part of the growing trend of false narrative profiteering.

 

[wayneL]

DYOR @rederob

I have.

 

[rederob]

DYOR @rederob

I have.

You posted information which has no credibility.
Is there a reason you continue to do this?

 

[basilio]

You posted information which has no credibility.
Is there a reason you continue to do this?

Because that is what Wayne wishes to believe and regardless of who says it and whatever insanity they demonstrate he will support it.

 

[basilio]

The research behind hydroxychloroquine as a cure for COVID 19.

What Scientific Tests Reveal about Dr. Immanuel's Hydroxychloroquine Claims
https://www.newsweek.com/what-scien...r-immanuels-hydroxychloroquine-claims-1521147

 

[qldfrog]

Finally seeing what was to happen, and was called a first wave, delayed by 3 months or so,,,or was it just summer at play; now we will get the aged care and sick deaths.
Do not fool yourself, we will get many deaths;
ultimately: younger population than Europe, warmer climate for around 50% of people, that should give you 5 to 6k deaths unitially before the problem recedes as the virus reaches max extension and summers comes back.overall 12k deaths by 2022 so around twice the last nasty fly epidemy
Thanks god, that eliminate the stupid "let's eradicate" idea.Can not wait to live again
I just hope but far from convinced that the hospitals here are aware of the learnings in Europe and so avoid the unnecessary deaths.
I wear mask in public transport and railway station, otherwise, just basic care

 

[Smurf1976]

Coronaviruses aren't chronic diseases which last a lifetime, they leave your system within weeks, not the rest of your life

If it can be shown beyond all doubt that this is indeed the case, so it's not like HIV or chickenpox, then that would indeed allay some concerns.

Thus far though, from a layperson's perspective there is thus far a lack of any real answers. What effects? On how many people? Etc. There's a lack of any real data on that it seems.