The Next Pandemic: SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19

[Chef Jim]

31 minutes ago, B-Man said:

That’s not correct 

 

The transport vans for our seniors ( capacity 10-15) have to be cleaned every day after being used to and from or Center. 
 

I’m sure it’s a NYS Regulation. 
and we’ve been open for 12 years 

 

 

 

 

About 10 years ago when we first moved to SF my wife got terribly ill.  She was sick for 3 months.   Fluid in her lungs (the drew out a litre of fluid in one procedure), around her heart, had a constant fever and terrible night sweats.  I was sure I was going to lose her.  She got better but swore she got it on the filthy metro system she rode to work every day.  The city was a filthy petri dish.  

[Magox]

More good news

 

 

[Buffalo Bills Fan]

2 hours ago, Cinga said:

 

What I find interesting about this is that the man infected his kids, but not his wife. Shouldn't they be testing her to find out why? 

 

Right. Could be spit up some kind of thing possibly. But who knows.

[Buffalo Bills Fan]

30 minutes ago, Magox said:

Good news:

 

Yet another study confirming this.  I seem to remember communicating to someone who is a bit of an authority on the matter about this.  This now marks the 3rd study that claims this to be the case.

 

—————————-

 

Children under 10 are less likely to get infected than adults and if they get infected, they are less likely to get seriously ill. What is interesting is that even if children do get infected, they are less likely to transmit the disease to others than adults. We have not found a single instance of a child infecting parents.

 

——————————

 

https://www.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/hunting-down-covid-19/

 

His colleagues published a paper in the New England Journal of medicine with their findings on the Virus.   You can read through the link and get all the sourcing to read in detail their claims.

 

 

Where there is smoke there is fire.   This is the third one to show overwhelming evidence that kids under 10 rarely pass on the virus to adults.

 

 

The schools should open.

 

Not sure what Cuomo is talking about but he said it.

For kids it is interesting. 

New York's Cuomo says 3 children have died from coronavirus-related mystery ailment

By Robert Gearty | Fox News

Facebook

Twitter

Flipboard

Comments

Print

Email

Fox News Flash top headlines for May 9

Fox News Flash top headlines are here. Check out what's clicking on Foxnews.com.

Get all the latest news on coronavirus and more delivered daily to your inbox. Sign up here.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo said Saturday that three young children in New York have died after being hospitalized with a rare and mysterious COVID-19 related illness.

One of the deaths was a 5-year-old boy on Thursday.

At his daily coronavirus briefing in Manhattan, Cuomo said the news was “disturbing.”

“This is the last thing we need at this time,” he said.

New York hospitals have reported 73 cases involving children experiencing symptoms similar to Kawasaki disease and toxic shock-like syndrome possibly due to COVID-19.

CHILDREN WITH CORONAVIRUS AT LA HOSPITAL DEVELOP RARE INFLAMMATORY CONDITION POSSIBLY LINKED TO COVID-19

Cuomo said the illness has been found mostly in toddlers and children of elementary school age.

"These children happen to have the COVID antibodies or be positive for COVID," he said. "But those were not the symptoms they showed when they came in to the hospital system."

He told reporters that the Center for Disease Control has asked New York to develop national criteria so that other hospitals in the U.S. will know what to look for if the case warrants.

The New York State Department of Health has issued an advisory about the inflammatory disease, called "Pediatric Multi-System Inflammatory Syndrome Associated with COVID-19," informing hospitals and doctors of the condition, as well as guidance for testing and reporting.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/health/new-york-cuomo-children-dead-coronavirus-mystery-ailment

 

Other places in USA reporting. U.K, Italy, Spain,  Belgium, as well among many others. 

 

This virus is pretty complex can hit lots of thing's in body. 

 

Italy reported in the eye coronavirus (first pateint). I think they found in ***** (of course china). But of course ebola might of been in ***** as well.

Edited May 10, 2020 by Buffalo Bills Fan

[Magox]

Here is another interesting observation.   If you read the link in the tweet it definitely gets in the weeds.   Basically they are implying that herd immunity can begin to take effect at much lower than 60%.  Keep in mind that estimate came from the Imperial guys which seems to be the basis for a lot of these wrong models and assumptions.

 

 

[Magox]

@Buffalo Bills Fan 

 

I definitely am interested in learning more about that but right now they are purely speculating.  And even if that is the case that still doesn’t take away from the study.   We do know that this virus is much more benign for kids than the typical flu, the numbers are conclusive on that matter.  What this study is also claiming is that kids are less likely not to just withstand the virus but to contract it than adults.  And what the study is also showing is that it’s somewhat rare for kids under 10 to pass on the virus to adults.

[Chandemonium]

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

That’s not correct 

 

The transport vans for our seniors ( capacity 10-15) have to be cleaned every day after being used to and from or Center. 
 

I’m sure it’s a NYS Regulation. 
and we’ve been open for 12 years 

 

 

 

 

 

It’s possible that a van operated by a senior center or the like has different regulations than the mass transit system used by the general public.

Edited May 10, 2020 by Chandemonium

[Hedge]

 

 

 

[Reality Check]

56 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

Common cold?  To my knowledge they're testing for presence of SARS-CoV2 which is the novel cornavirus that causes the COVID-19 disease.  It has its own specific genetic sequence so they're able to distinguish it from other cornaviruses using the RT-PRC method. 

 

I have heard that explanation also, but in practice, I am curious if that is the truth. Quality control issues and fraud are my main concern, given the fraud that the WHO got caught perpetrating in Tanzania recently. It is my understanding that the president of Tanzania was also a physician.

[meazza]

23 minutes ago, Magox said:

Here is another interesting observation.   If you read the link in the tweet it definitely gets in the weeds.   Basically they are implying that herd immunity can begin to take effect at much lower than 60%.  Keep in mind that estimate came from the Imperial guys which seems to be the basis for a lot of these wrong models and assumptions.

 

 

Scott Gottlieb posted this yesterday night on Twitter.

 

 

[Magox]

10 minutes ago, meazza said:

Scott Gottlieb posted this yesterday night on Twitter.

 

 

 

Im going to have to find that.   If indeed they are correct then that would be an absolute game changer and should alter public policy.   I wonder if they mean that the rate of impact is more noticeable at 17% as opposed to actually reaching herd immunity at 17%.  Seems awfully low to me.   
 

I never viewed it as this magical number that once we reached it Voilaaaaa   We are now at herd immunity.   I view it as a spectrum and as more people in the community have contracted the virus the more community immunity that you would achieve.   I could see how at 17% there is a level of protection from the virus in the community but I’m struggling to believe it would offer lots of protection.   But it could be enough to bend the curve and make the virus more manageable which I believe is what that study was saying.

[B-Man]

 

JOHN COCHRANE:  “A lovely result of the corona virus outbreak has been how we see stifling aspects of regulations. Right left and center are figuring out that the regulations need reform.”

 

 

 

 

Amen.

 

 

[meazza]

41 minutes ago, Magox said:

 

Im going to have to find that.   If indeed they are correct then that would be an absolute game changer and should alter public policy.   I wonder if they mean that the rate of impact is more noticeable at 17% as opposed to actually reaching herd immunity at 17%.  Seems awfully low to me.   
 

I never viewed it as this magical number that once we reached it Voilaaaaa   We are now at herd immunity.   I view it as a spectrum and as more people in the community have contracted the virus the more community immunity that you would achieve.   I could see how at 17% there is a level of protection from the virus in the community but I’m struggling to believe it would offer lots of protection.   But it could be enough to bend the curve and make the virus more manageable which I believe is what that study was saying.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.27.20081893v1?fbclid=IwAR0CJ_E7H7AMA-6-AfdHiIDlEQquczQEDGjXBrLJBYhMsu_nMI4FVvHU9Jc

[Doc Brown]

2 hours ago, Reality Check said:

I have heard that explanation also, but in practice, I am curious if that is the truth. Quality control issues and fraud are my main concern, given the fraud that the WHO got caught perpetrating in Tanzania recently. It is my understanding that the president of Tanzania was also a physician.

Think whatever you want to think.  Make it a conspiracy if you have to.

[Doc Brown]

Results of baseball study testing for Covid19 antibodies.  Important to note it was not peer reviewed before being released.  About 60 out of 5,754 tested positive for coronavirus antibodies and 70% who tested positive showed no symptoms.  My assumption is most who were tested are more wealthy and healthy than the general population.

Few positive coronavirus antibodies tests among MLB employees

Sixty of the 5,754 people in a study of the Major League Baseball employee population tested positive for coronavirus antibodies, a rate lower than what similar studies run in California found, the studies' authors said Sunday.

 

"I was expecting a larger number," said Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine at Stanford University, which ran the study. "It shows the value of doing the science as opposed to guessing."

 

The results of the study, which was held in mid-April, revealed a prevalence of COVID-19 antibodies in the MLB employee population of 0.7 percent -- a number adjusted to reflect testing accuracy. The survey showed that about 70% of those who tested positive for COVID-19 antibodies had been asymptomatic.

 

After volunteering to participate, MLB was chosen by Stanford to join the study, which will have no bearing on the league's ability to return to play as it prepares to offer a proposal to the players' association this week that will outline a plan to do so.

 

Twenty-six of MLB's 30 teams participated in the study, which sent out 10,000 test kits. Because of stay-at-home orders and other logistical complications, 5,754 of the tests, in which participants use a pin prick to draw blood and received almost immediate results, were completed. A total of 5,603 completed the tests and filled out a survey that accompanied it.

 

Men comprised 60% of the population and white people 80% -- numbers that don't necessarily reflect the nation and make extrapolating the findings problematic. Similarly, Bhattacharya said, the prevalence of white-collar workers among the MLB population could account for a prevalence rate lower than those found in different samples with tests done in Santa Clara County in Northern California and Los Angeles County in Southern California.

 

"There's a socioeconomic gradient where poorer populations are facing COVID infections at higher rates," Bhattacharya said.

Among those with COVID-19 antibodies in the MLB study, in the two weeks prior to the test:

• 2.7% had a fever

• 14% had a headache

• 8% had a cough (compared to 9% among those who tested negative)

• 0.9% had lost a sense of taste and smell

Bhattacharya said the study has not been peer-reviewed but that he plans to upload it to a preprint server for criticism as well as a medical journal to peer review.

 

While the Santa Clara study drew criticism from some medical professionals and mathematicians for its use of statistics, Bhattacharya said the increased number of antibodies tests done nationwide has enhanced his confidence in the test's sensitivity and specificity, both of which are vital for accurate results. While the prevalence of the study is 0.7%, the adjusted prevalence, which accounts for error, is between 0.28% and 1.15%, according to the authors.

Edited May 11, 2020 by Doc Brown

[shoshin]

7 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

Results of baseball study testing for Covid19 antibodies.  Important to note it was not peer reviewed before being released.  About 60 out of 5,754 tested positive for coronavirus antibodies and 70% who tested positive showed no symptoms.  My assumption is most who were tested are more wealthy and healthy than the general population.

Few positive coronavirus antibodies tests among MLB employees

Sixty of the 5,754 people in a study of the Major League Baseball employee population tested positive for coronavirus antibodies, a rate lower than what similar studies run in California found, the studies' authors said Sunday.

 

 

 

 I don't think we are going to see the 25, 20, 15, 10, or even 5% in the general population for a long time. 

 

I like NYS's metrics. I was not familiar with how they were gating the reopening except that it was similar to the Trump CDC guidelines:

 

 

[Reality Check]

36 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

Think whatever you want to think.  Make it a conspiracy if you have to.

Thank you, I will.

[Magox]

8 hours ago, Magox said:

 

I want to expand on this a little bit.   I keep hearing through different outlets that our death count is being underreported.   There has been very simple research where they compare this years death count to previous years and they extrapolate a cursory conclusion that COVID deaths are not being reported correctly due to the variance in deaths.   
 

To call that a hastily conducted conclusion would be an understatement.   First, there is no way to conclude that the variance in death is due to COVID.   Secondly, we know for a fact that there are significant amount of people who are not getting the cancer and heart related treatments that they need.  We aren’t talking about some marginal number we are talking about estimates of in between 30-60% less reported cases.   There are experts here in the US that believe that we may be seeing more deaths due to these issues than the virus itself.  Research paper out of Australia concluded that they saw more deaths due to this than the virus itself.

 

It very well may be that this is not the case that there are more residually related deaths of COVID than the virus itself but I would be willing to wager that it is not a statistically insignificant number.

 

Birx early on held her tongue but indirectly made the case early on that the ventilator shortage drama that was playing out with the governors and media was being overstated, even though it was heresy to publicly outright say it at the time.

 

So when she says that she believes that deaths may be overstated by 25%, then I think there is probably a pretty decent chance that she is right.   I would love to see more granular data on the subsets of mortality but personally speaking, my intuition based off the immediate data that I have seen leads me to a similar conclusion.  

 

I’d like to expand a little further on this.   This opinion would not be a popular viewpoint but I think it’s legitimate and when we are talking about policy implications looking at the raw data by eliminating the emotive elements have to be considered.

 

So what are some of the facts?

 

Average coronavirus age of someone who dies is 80. 
 

Average age of someone in the US who dies excluding coronavirus is 78.

 

88% of people who die of coronavirus have 2 or more comorbidities.

 

If someone is 80 years old and has 2 or more comorbidities,  Which is the typical profile of the average person who dies of COVID then would it not be a reasonable statement to say that since they were already at a more vulnerable age in bad health that the virus was essentially the last straw?
 

 

I don’t want to minimize anyone’s situation and if there is someone reading this that fits into this category or close to it please don’t think that I’m suggesting that people who do are valued any less.   I empathize with people especially the thought that many of these people who pass away are separated from their families and are alone in their death beds.  The thought of that horrifies me.

 

But from a public policy point of view this has to be considered when you have governments creating these other residual effects of the shut downs that are causing younger people to not get the care they need for heart and cancer related afflictions that is also leading to deaths.  
 

 

Edited May 11, 2020 by Magox

[Joe Miner]

5 minutes ago, Magox said:

 

I’d like to expand a little further on this.   This opinion would not be a popular viewpoint but I think it’s legitimate and when we are talking about policy implications looking at the raw data by eliminating the emotive elements have to be considered.

 

So what are some of the facts?

 

Average coronavirus age of someone who dies is 80. 
 

Average age of someone in the US who dies excluding coronavirus is 78.

 

88% of people who die of coronavirus have 2 or more comorbidities.

 

If someone is 80 years old and has 2 or more comorbidities,  Which is the typical profile of the average person who dies of COVID then would it not be a reasonable statement to say that since they were already at a more vulnerable age in bad health that the virus was essentially the last straw?
 

 

I don’t want to minimize anyone’s situation and if there is someone reading this that fits into this category or close to it please don’t think that I’m suggesting that people who do are valued any less.   I empathize with people especially the thought that many of these people who pass away are separated from their families and are alone in their death beds.  The thought of that horrified me.

 

But from a public policy point of view this has to be considered when you have governments creating these other residual effects of the shut downs that are causing younger people to not get the care they need for heart and cancer related afflictions that is also leading to deaths.  
 

 

I’m curious how close the 88% number is for the same demographic that then gets pneumonia.

[Magox]

6 minutes ago, Joe Miner said:

I’m curious how close the 88% number is for the same demographic that then gets pneumonia.

 

That’s an interesting point, I do know that people who are older and sicker are more at risk to the regular flu and often times develop pneumonia and die.   The more I read about the virus the more I think that the biggest difference between the two is that this virus is more contagious and there is no vaccine to limit its spread.  I’m not saying they are the same just that from what I’m seeing the things I mentioned are the two biggest differences.