Covid19 science
Discussion
The whole thing is badly understood by the WHO and others as far as I can see. For example, in Iceland they carried out tests in the general population whether showing Coronovirus symptoms or not and found that half those testing positive had none or mild symptoms. The study states that asymptomatic, or mildly symptomatic people have played an important role in spreading the virus. I think they've also tested the general population of a town in Italy and found much the same thing.
I’ve stated before in PH that the advice by the WHO that the virus is spread by coughing or sneezing cannot be the whole story. So many people have caught it yet so few people are coughing and sneezing. If any of us was within 100 metres of someone sneezing, we’d steer clear of them.
I can only deduce that in time scientists will say that many people had the virus without symptoms (impossible to tell in the UK due to only testing people in hospital with symptoms) and that just breathing near to these people is enough to catch the virus from the normal aerosols in their breath.
I’ve stated before in PH that the advice by the WHO that the virus is spread by coughing or sneezing cannot be the whole story. So many people have caught it yet so few people are coughing and sneezing. If any of us was within 100 metres of someone sneezing, we’d steer clear of them.
I can only deduce that in time scientists will say that many people had the virus without symptoms (impossible to tell in the UK due to only testing people in hospital with symptoms) and that just breathing near to these people is enough to catch the virus from the normal aerosols in their breath.
Blacksquid said:
I’ve stated before in PH that the advice by the WHO that the virus is spread by coughing or sneezing cannot be the whole story. So many people have caught it yet so few people are coughing and sneezing. If any of us was within 100 metres of someone sneezing, we’d steer clear of them.
I can only deduce that in time scientists will say that many people had the virus without symptoms (impossible to tell in the UK due to only testing people in hospital with symptoms) and that just breathing near to these people is enough to catch the virus from the normal aerosols in their breath.
Coughing, sneezing vs just exhaling will affect projection of any droplets etc. I think the figures I've seen suggest up to several metres for a sneeze, up to a metre or two for coughing and I'd have thought just exhaling would be less than a metre. But then there is if the droplets don't evaporate they will settle on surfaces and someone else comes along and touches that surface, then their face. If it was to be normal breathing transmitting it, you'd probably need to be close enough to smell their breath.... other particles they have exhaled.I can only deduce that in time scientists will say that many people had the virus without symptoms (impossible to tell in the UK due to only testing people in hospital with symptoms) and that just breathing near to these people is enough to catch the virus from the normal aerosols in their breath.
For all the changes in behaviour that have been, mostly, followed; I suspect a big factor that overlaps with your final point is that if infected individuals are asymptomatic they and those around them won't be as diligent with handwashing/distance etc, so whilst breathing on each other may be a factor, touching surfaces and faces will also be significant.
WHO really have been the pits on this. This kind of thing is their time to step up and yet we had the first months with them saying the mortality rate was 1% (later 1-2%) with no real evidence of this on the Chinese ‘stats’ where it was nothing less than 4% - and so countries didn’t take it seriously at enough at 1% so didn’t prepare. It now seems possible CCP made up the figures anyway.
WHO took weeks to ‘visit’ Wuhan and when they did they didn’t go there but went to Beijing. They then said there was no evidence of community recovery (which would have made a big difference) when there must have been.
They didn’t press the ‘Pandemic’ button until weeks after it was clear to everyone that it was. They didn’t recommend reduction in air travel nearly early enough.
Having said that Trump is an idiot withdrawing funding - he’s just a childish blamer. WHO need a real slap but not destroying due to funding removal.
WHO took weeks to ‘visit’ Wuhan and when they did they didn’t go there but went to Beijing. They then said there was no evidence of community recovery (which would have made a big difference) when there must have been.
They didn’t press the ‘Pandemic’ button until weeks after it was clear to everyone that it was. They didn’t recommend reduction in air travel nearly early enough.
Having said that Trump is an idiot withdrawing funding - he’s just a childish blamer. WHO need a real slap but not destroying due to funding removal.
As far as I can see the role of the WHO has been very much lacking in leadership, information and action.
I'm sure they do great work around the world in terms of disease control, mainly in Africa, and I get the impression they have done good control measures over ebola and malaria. But, when it comes to a fast spreading out of control epidemic in a powerhouse such as china where they have little to no influence over such a communist regime, they have been more or less useless.
The WHO's main role for the world was to more or less change the virus spread from epidemic to pandemic, only once it was too late for individual nations around the globe to react to it.
In terms of science, I think doctors should be administering any drug that has been shown to have even limited positive effects. The issue around hydroxychloroquine and the fact that numerous highly experienced doctors are claiming that on the main it seems that the use of ventilators is not exactly treating the apparent disease, then I think there needs to be a realisation that the virus is acting like altitude sickness rather than a pneumonia sickness.
The partisan politics that has entered the medical scene in these extreme times is very worrying. I don't see the logic at all in political opposition pressure to ignore a possible treatment just because Trump promoted it. Partisan politics in these times is extremely juvenile and damaging to public health prospects.
I'm sure they do great work around the world in terms of disease control, mainly in Africa, and I get the impression they have done good control measures over ebola and malaria. But, when it comes to a fast spreading out of control epidemic in a powerhouse such as china where they have little to no influence over such a communist regime, they have been more or less useless.
The WHO's main role for the world was to more or less change the virus spread from epidemic to pandemic, only once it was too late for individual nations around the globe to react to it.
In terms of science, I think doctors should be administering any drug that has been shown to have even limited positive effects. The issue around hydroxychloroquine and the fact that numerous highly experienced doctors are claiming that on the main it seems that the use of ventilators is not exactly treating the apparent disease, then I think there needs to be a realisation that the virus is acting like altitude sickness rather than a pneumonia sickness.
The partisan politics that has entered the medical scene in these extreme times is very worrying. I don't see the logic at all in political opposition pressure to ignore a possible treatment just because Trump promoted it. Partisan politics in these times is extremely juvenile and damaging to public health prospects.
Seems like zinc maybe be helpful - a 1996 double-blind study found that zinc lozenges reduced the time to clear to 4.4 days compared to the placebo group (7.6 days). A Cochrane review in 2013 found that in 1781 participants across all ages found zinc inhibits virus replication. A 2010 study found that zinc inhibits SARS-CoV. Although anecdotal, there have been numerous reports that the combination of HCQ and zinc is effective:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_a_combo_of_ch...
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_a_combo_of_ch...
Just to add some input from professionals worth listening to:
https://www.sott.net/article/432695-8-MORE-Experts...
I have read a lot from Prof John Lee MD. It is nice to read some balanced information compared to the sensationalism and fear propagated by the mainstream media (which I have a particular distrust for).
https://www.sott.net/article/432695-8-MORE-Experts...
I have read a lot from Prof John Lee MD. It is nice to read some balanced information compared to the sensationalism and fear propagated by the mainstream media (which I have a particular distrust for).
Why are reporters asking such inane questions it’s like they’ve been given fifteen seconds to think of something to ask?
Good questions would be:
1. Why are there still passenger flights landing eg at about 1pm every day from Islamabad and many others?
2. What are the recovered figures. Why are we the only country not publishing them?
3. There are five separate C19 Apps - why haven’t Govt consolidated or issued one App for the whole country which would establish home recovery numbers, hot spots, trends etc? And promoted it at EVERY presser.
Good questions would be:
1. Why are there still passenger flights landing eg at about 1pm every day from Islamabad and many others?
2. What are the recovered figures. Why are we the only country not publishing them?
3. There are five separate C19 Apps - why haven’t Govt consolidated or issued one App for the whole country which would establish home recovery numbers, hot spots, trends etc? And promoted it at EVERY presser.
Why are reporters asking such inane questions it’s like they’ve been given fifteen seconds to think of something to ask?
Good questions would be:
1. Why are there still passenger flights landing eg at about 1pm every day from Islamabad and many others?
2. What are the recovered figures. Why are we the only country not publishing them?
3. There are five separate C19 Apps - why haven’t Govt consolidated or issued one App for the whole country which would establish home recovery numbers, hot spots, trends etc? And promoted it at EVERY presser.
Good questions would be:
1. Why are there still passenger flights landing eg at about 1pm every day from Islamabad and many others?
2. What are the recovered figures. Why are we the only country not publishing them?
3. There are five separate C19 Apps - why haven’t Govt consolidated or issued one App for the whole country which would establish home recovery numbers, hot spots, trends etc? And promoted it at EVERY presser.
V6 Pushfit said:
Why are reporters asking such inane questions it’s like they’ve been given fifteen seconds to think of something to ask?
Good questions would be:
1. Why are there still passenger flights landing eg at about 1pm every day from Islamabad and many others?
2. What are the recovered figures. Why are we the only country not publishing them?
3. There are five separate C19 Apps - why haven’t Govt consolidated or issued one App for the whole country which would establish home recovery numbers, hot spots, trends etc? And promoted it at EVERY presser.
Agreed on the App front, consolidate & improve, nudge people into having it, then it can be used without political spin to help track n trace further down the road.Good questions would be:
1. Why are there still passenger flights landing eg at about 1pm every day from Islamabad and many others?
2. What are the recovered figures. Why are we the only country not publishing them?
3. There are five separate C19 Apps - why haven’t Govt consolidated or issued one App for the whole country which would establish home recovery numbers, hot spots, trends etc? And promoted it at EVERY presser.
On the airport front - I’m at Heathrow now and it’s like the grave.
andy_s said:
Agreed on the App front, consolidate & improve, nudge people into having it, then it can be used without political spin to help track n trace further down the road.
An App would make a huge difference- thee are over 10 different ones all doing part of what one could do. Govt could have told Apple to promote its one and there would be about 12million on it already rather than being spread over all of them. BBC: Coronavirus: Plasma treatment to be trialled
Didn’t the Chinese try this with great success why are we only starting to think of it now? They took serum from every recover
Just seems to me it’s as though we’re starting from square one on science that otters are using as a matter of course.
Didn’t the Chinese try this with great success why are we only starting to think of it now? They took serum from every recover
Just seems to me it’s as though we’re starting from square one on science that otters are using as a matter of course.
Thesprucegoose said:
Yes the China, the last bastion of openness and truthfulness,
And the UK the last bastion of pre emptive action.I read a paper on it months ago and how the serum showed massive improvements in lung CT scans in a couple of days. Just surprised no one here thought ‘oh let’s try that’ about 6 weeks ago.
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 20th April 07:21
V6 Pushfit said:
And the UK the last bastion of pre emptive action.
I read a paper on it months ago and how the serum showed massive improvements in lung CT scans in a couple of days. Just surprised no one here thought ‘oh let’s try that’ about 6 weeks ago.
there have been loads of papers, I'm sure it is not as easy as just taking plasma and using it on infected patients. This is science not politics where caution and testing take precedence over spin and rhetoric.I read a paper on it months ago and how the serum showed massive improvements in lung CT scans in a couple of days. Just surprised no one here thought ‘oh let’s try that’ about 6 weeks ago.
Edited by V6 Pushfit on Monday 20th April 07:21
Look at the damage Trump has done championing an untested drug, that looks to be killing more than it cures.
This is a paper from 4 years back but still relevent, the negatives of it are;
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC47817...
''However, there are still some issues to consider in determining the advisability of implementing a large-scale CP transfusion programme71:
(i) the lack of high-quality studies (i.e. randomised clinical trials);
(ii) the risk of transmitting infections to transfusion service personnel72 (e.g. when handling laboratory specimens from infected recipients for pre-transfusion testing);
(iii) the need for adequate selection of donors with high neutralising antibody titres;
(iv) suitable risk assessment when considering relaxing the selection criteria against the risk impact of excluding donors;
(v) case-fatality rates in CP trials will be influenced not only by patients’ risk factors but also by the specific supportive care offered by clinical centres;
(vi) immunotherapy using monoclonal antibodies could be more effective;
(vii) many healthcare workers transferred to Europe or the USA received CP and survived but also benefited from experimental therapies and optimal supportive treatment, which are rarely available in developing countries; and
(viii) in endemic areas, the risk of other transfusion-transmitted infections (e.g. human immunodeficiency virus, hepatitis B virus, hepatitis C virus and syphilis) cannot be excluded and pathogen reduction technologies should play a key role in guaranteeing safe CP transfusion.''
Monty Python said:
What drug would that be, and where is the evidence that it's "killing ore than it cures"?
Hydroxychloroquinehttps://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/...
If hydroxychloroquine is to be used, a clear informed choice needs to be offered to every contact, explaining the scarcity of evidence for its efficacy and its potential risks.
I guess people will argue with the Lancet.....
This tests completed
https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2020-04-17/m...
''In research done in France, hydroxychloroquine reduced neither deaths nor admissions to intensive care units among patients who received it. In a study conducted in China and another in Brazil, the two drugs failed to help patients clear the coronavirus faster.
And in Brazil, two deaths and a rash of heart troubles among patients who got a high dose of chloroquine prompted a hasty alteration of the trial there after just 13 days. Concluding that “enough red flags” had been raised, the researchers halted testing of the drug in its extra-strength form.''
Edited by Thesprucegoose on Monday 20th April 20:23
Thesprucegoose said:
Monty Python said:
What drug would that be, and where is the evidence that it's "killing ore than it cures"?
Hydroxychloroquinehttps://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/...
If hydroxychloroquine is to be used, a clear informed choice needs to be offered to every contact, explaining the scarcity of evidence for its efficacy and its potential risks.
I guess people will argue with the Lancet.....
This tests completed
https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2020-04-17/m...
''In research done in France, hydroxychloroquine reduced neither deaths nor admissions to intensive care units among patients who received it. In a study conducted in China and another in Brazil, the two drugs failed to help patients clear the coronavirus faster.
And in Brazil, two deaths and a rash of heart troubles among patients who got a high dose of chloroquine prompted a hasty alteration of the trial there after just 13 days. Concluding that “enough red flags” had been raised, the researchers halted testing of the drug in its extra-strength form.''
Edited by Thesprucegoose on Monday 20th April 20:23
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff