Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Coronavirus - worldwide breaking news, discussion, stats, updates and more

AP is one of the few international news portals I can access easily here; been appreciating their series of obits of various ordinary people who've died due to Covid-19, proper memorials for victims who might otherwise just be numbers outside friends and family:
apnews.com

Lives Lost: Generous Egyptian grandma was family 'jewel'

BAHTIM, Egypt (AP) — Gold and silver streamers fluttered in the breeze, hung from house to house down the alley, a festive sign of the holy month of Ramadan.
apnews.com apnews.com
 
elbows said:
I will ask again, what earlier suspicions that many/most of us have some level of resistance?

You know I am very interested in asymptomatic cases, levels of population infection, assumptions about how many people would get it if the pandemic was left unmitigated, and even the idea of some kind of ceiling that we dont understand.

But none of that translates in my mind to the idea that many/most of us have some level of resistance. But it depends what resistance means. So I'm asking again, what are you on about?
Click to expand...
It doesn't depend on what resistance means, really. Just with a minimal definition - less likely to catch it than others even in direct contact with the virus, without hypothesising the mechanism, although it could be something like having antibodies to a related coronavirus. There was an emerging pattern from various studies, which I posted about a while back, that suggested that there could be some upper limit on the percentage of us that will become infected, perhaps as low as 20%: studies of populations in badly hit places, family members of infected people, the Diamond Princess.

That's all I'm referring to. An institution of a few thousand recording 80 percent is evidence against that. I was suggesting a possible connection between that and the suggestion of a new, more infectious strain.
 
Cant find anywhere else to post this but I went out to Ferrerias which is a little town down the road and loads had masks on. The small shops can only have four people inside and customers and staff must wear a mask, compulsory to have perspex at the till area. Went to the chemists to buy some masks and on waiting and then entering the shop got told I needed to wear a mask to come in which I explained was why I had come in. Anyway 10 disposable masks 10 euros. Cafes and restuarants . bars technically are those larte night places with music, open in two weeks but the safety restrictions are going to be financially difficult for some. . I spoke to a Portuguese friend of mine who has a cafe , she has to have perspex screens put up at the bar between customers and staff and indoor perpex around the table .She said she may just close and leave. Most Portuguese eat indoors or under shade so those with little or no outside space will struggle. The take away trade from my local bars is still going but they close at 7. GNR the police arrived just after I left one on Sunday and disperced the fifteen or so drinking beer outside who hadnt ordered any food and tbh had no intention of. Went through all the cars parked up as well checking tyres and documents.
 
Latest modelling suggests relaxing lockdown can be very finely balanced, needing close monitoring, some social distancing measures remaining in place, along with testing, contact-tracing and isolation of all infected cases. Here for Italy a return to 20% of pre-lockdown levels of mobility is sufficient to risk triggering a larger second wave within 3 weeks.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
It doesn't depend on what resistance means, really. Just with a minimal definition - less likely to catch it than others even in direct contact with the virus, without hypothesising the mechanism, although it could be something like having antibodies to a related coronavirus. There was an emerging pattern from various studies, which I posted about a while back, that suggested that there could be some upper limit on the percentage of us that will become infected, perhaps as low as 20%: studies of populations in badly hit places, family members of infected people, the Diamond Princess.

That's all I'm referring to. An institution of a few thousand recording 80 percent is evidence against that. I was suggesting a possible connection between that and the suggestion of a new, more infectious strain.
Click to expand...

I would not make that link between a 'new strain' (but then I wouldnt call it a new strain either) and this.

I'd like to see proper data on the prison, the 80% and the detail that most of them were asymptomatic is enough to make me a bit wary of that info. It could be correct and other stuff is whats been wrong, and I was certainly expecting more asymptomatic cases than any study has found anywhere yet. But this is a big leap between what was seen elsewhere, and I want to understand why. Sadly I havent found much about that prison (Marion, Ohio) being looked at by scientists and otehr professionals yet, just media stories about it.

Attack rate or incidence rate are some of the terms used in epidemiology in regards this stuff as far as I know. I dont think all the underlying reasons for the rates estimated for particular diseases, epidemics etc are terribly well understood, so its another subject where I get wound up when I try to read up on it. Its an important number to feed into models because it obviously makes a huge difference to disease burden, but a lot of the numbers that end up getting used look like guesswork to me. Its another one of those things thats on my list of things to try to learn more about, but it gets so frustrating. I dont even hear that much talk about it and this pandemic.

As for having antibodies to a related coronavirus, thats not on my radar much, because as far as wek know most people have never had a related coronavirus. Given that other beta coronaviruses that are endemic in humans are not much related to SARS-CoV-2. The original SARS is related, so its possible people who got the original SARS would be protected somewhat against SARS-CoV-2 (this pandemic virus) as well, but there have been no SARS outbreaks for a long time and coronavirus immunity is not thought to last for too many years. So this sort of area is low on my list of things to look at when considering what limits there might be to attack rates of this virus.
 
2hats said:
Latest modelling suggests relaxing lockdown can be very finely balanced, needing close monitoring, some social distancing measures remaining in place, along with testing, contact-tracing and isolation of all infected cases. Here for Italy a return to 20% of pre-lockdown levels of mobility is sufficient to risk triggering a larger second wave within 3 weeks.
Click to expand...

The report wont load for me right now, so I've had to make do with their own news item about it:

www.imperial.ac.uk

New report models Italy's potential exit strategy from COVID-19 lockdown | Imperial News | Imperial College London

Imperial researchers have analysed the likely impact of easing lockdown measures in Italy and the impact on transmission of coronavirus.
www.imperial.ac.uk www.imperial.ac.uk
 
2hats said:
Latest modelling suggests relaxing lockdown can be very finely balanced, needing close monitoring, some social distancing measures remaining in place, along with testing, contact-tracing and isolation of all infected cases. Here for Italy a return to 20% of pre-lockdown levels of mobility is sufficient to risk triggering a larger second wave within 3 weeks.
Click to expand...
The summary is interesting. I can't help wondering just how they coordinate a report that apparently was written by so many authors ? :)
 
How prevalent are the cold causing coronaviruses, I saw a statistic saying 20-30% of colds? And how closely related to SARS-Cov2 are they?
 
weltweit said:
The summary is interesting. I can't help wondering just how they coordinate a report that apparently was written by so many authors ? :)
Click to expand...

I believe it's getting more common... Big collaborative projects, especially with lots of data analysis and several institutions involved. And increasing willingness to acknowledge lower level researchers.
 
frogwoman said:
How prevalent are the cold causing coronaviruses, I saw a statistic saying 20-30% of colds? And how closely related to SARS-Cov2 are they?
Click to expand...

Estimate vary, I have seen estimates that go as low as 15% but these might be old, and I certainly see plenty of 25%-30% too, maybe even some that go higher. But there are certainly a lot of other viruses that get labelled as the common cold too.

They are not closely related to SARS-CoV-2. Two of them are related to eachother, and the other two are more distantly related to eachother. Two of them are at least beta coronaviruses which is the same broad type as SARS-CoV-2, but that are not even closely related enough that I could easily stumble on scientific papers that go on about such things. They are all thought to have crossed from animals to humans at different times. The coronaviruses may have had a common ancestor millions of years ago.

Different existing human coronaviruses likely follow cycles in human populations, having years where one or two of them are quite rampant, and then years where they are not doing much in a particular country or region. This is thought to be linked to human immunity, and is probably one of the reasons that people are often not optimistic when they talk about how long human immuniy to coronaviruses lasts. ie if these coronaviruses seem to pop up in waves every 2-4 years, then that might also point to immunity lasting a similar length of time.

There are great big huge gaps in my knowledge and I dont find it at all easy to try to turn concepts relating to mutations, viral evolution, ancestry and how closely related different ones are into simple concepts. And I havent got my head round much of the detail. But I recall for example concepts such as recombination from the years where I was looking most heavily into influenza, and I see this has popped up again in some of the recent study into this pandemic virus. If I recall correctly, the simple version of recombination is that bits of the viruses genome are not only there because of random mutations, some viruses can also copy bits from each other if a host is co-infected with both viruses at the same time. And its thought that for various reasons certain animal hosts may be especially important in terms of their potential to enable a lot of recombination events. Bats could be one of those. I'm less familiar with the human picture, but I suppose in theory some people, such as hospital patients or healthcare workers, might be more likely to encounter multiple viruses at the same time and thus be potential hosts for more recombination events than others. I'm not exactly sure when I will find time to try to improve my knowledge on this and other details, so take what I'm saying on this with a pinch of salt and do own reading about the subject if interested.

But dragging things back to the likely original reason we went on this tangent, the simplified version of a pandemic is that the entire reason its a big deal in the first place is that the human population lacks immunity against the virus, its one of the main reasons novel viruses are of concern in the first place. However several influenza pandemics of the last century did turn out to involve some sections of the population having some degree of prior exposure to similar flu viruses in their distant past, so the simplified version of a pandemic tends to fall short of covering this reality. Plus quite a lot of flu epidemics, where the type of influenza was not 'brand new' to humans (so not a pandemic) still involved nasty amounts of death that stick out in the historical mortality data. Well the strain of flu doesnt need to be brand new to evade immune systems to the extent that nasty epidemics can result, it can just evolve over time to the extent that enough of its characteristics become different enough that the immune systems of people are no longer primed to deal with the virus. Bringing me to another concept that I recall from the past in this regard and that I would recommend reading up on if interested, Antigenic Drift. I'd love to say more, but I am oh so rusty on this stuff.
 
Feckin hairdressers here are whinging about people wanting their hair cut. Apparently there's a bit of a black market going on.
Hairdressers being offered 5 times the amount they normally charge to do hair.

How on earth do they expect to wash and cut hair and maintain social distancing?

I'm worried that the government will cave in to loudmouths and not heed to the chief medical officer's advice.
I mean hair dressing is not an essential service.. hair can easily be trimmed or cut at home. And dyed too of needed.
 
Going off this report it looks like it may indicate a real increase. Iran might be worth paying attention to as, I think, the first country outside eastern Asia for both being badly hit by the pandemic and for relaxing its lockdown. It may show a pattern that will be repeated elsewhere.

www.al-monitor.com

Coronavirus resurgence hits Iran

Iranian officials warn that a resurgence of the novel coronavirus is gripping nearly half of the country as the number of infections climb once again.
www.al-monitor.com www.al-monitor.com
A report released by Iran’s Health Ministry says 15 out of the country’s 31 provinces are experiencing a resurgence of the novel coronavirus pandemic, despite a flattened curve after more than two months of containment efforts.

While the capital Tehran appeared to have begun a downward trend in cases, several popular tourism areas including Isfahan, Gilan and the pilgrimage city of Qom — the epicenter of the outbreak — are now facing another wave of infection.

The impoverished southern province of Hormozgan is also on the list. The growth in infections despite 36-degree temperatures (97 Fahrenheit) in Hormozgan once again dashed hopes that hot weather may subdue the virus. One Health Ministry test conducted in a Hormozgan seafood market alone identified over 100 cases of people who exhibited no obvious symptoms.

The resurgence has also slammed the oil-rich province of Khuzestan in the past 10 days, with Governor Gholam-Reza Shariati blaming the situation on the “public’s disregard” for social distancing measures. If the current trend holds, Shariati warned, the earlier restrictions will have to return in force.

Starting April 11, Iran introduced a phased relaxation of the strict containment measures, lifting travel bans and restoring much of the economy to pre-pandemic activity. The government also allowed religious gatherings to resume in mosques across 132 cities and Friday prayers in many more after mounting pressure from the conservative clergy, who argue that a continued closure on religious sites will deal an irreparable spiritual blow to the Iranian theocracy.

Nonetheless, Deputy Health Minister Iraj Harirchi warned that even in those areas, designated as “COVID-19 white spots,” the resumption of collective religious activities by no means indicates “the situation is back to normal,” and that social distancing will have to drag on until the world finds a vaccine.

Questions surrounding how much longer those precautions will have to be observed remain an open debate in Iran, with some officials accused of serving as inappropriate examples by ignoring the measures before the public eye. Video from a May 5 parliament meeting broadcast on state TV showed speaker Ali Larijani — a coronavirus survivor himself — urging lawmakers to maintain the recommended distance from each other.

For several days in a row, Iran had registered double-digit mortality figures. But as of May 5, the total number of infected neared 100,000.

Iran's flattened curve remains fragile, some experts have noted with serious concern about the return to normalcy. Iranian health officials sounded the alarm last month that it is only a matter of time before second and third waves of infection, a situation that would reimpose massive burdens on Iran's already overstretched first responders and sanctions-hit medical infrastructure.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
elbows 2hats

An actuarial analysis of the commonly seen claim that "deaths are occurring in people that would have died anyway"

www.theactuary.com

The co-morbidity question

Would the majority of COVID-19 victims have died this year anyway, as some have suggested? Matthew Edwards and Stuart McDonald investigate
www.theactuary.com www.theactuary.com

Conclusion:
Recapping the main arguments, COVID-19 does seem to disproportionately affect people with chronic health problems. On the other hand, while it affects the old more than the young, and a large proportion of the elderly will have chronic health problems, only a tiny fraction of impaired lives have life expectancies of the order of one year. Therefore we feel it is unfounded to claim that a large proportion of those who have died from COVID-19 in 2020 would have died in any case this year.

This claim, in addition to being false, is also dangerous from a public health perspective: it understates the risk from the disease, endangering adherence to government policy on social distancing. It also seems very callous, encouraging a ‘why should I care?’ attitude to the people in question – in our view, people who would (in the great majority of cases) be alive now in the absence of the coronavirus, and would probably still be alive in several years’ time.
Click to expand...

This is built on a mortality model based on those with heavy comorbid diseases, that produces this kind of thing:

1588857100083.png
 
weltweit said:
Germany’s coronavirus response: Separating fact from fiction
from 07/05/2020 Germany’s coronavirus response: Separating fact from fiction | DW | 07.04.2020

The English language article debunks some of the myths of why Germany seems to be doing better in Europe compared to Spain Italy and UK. But it slightly frustratingly doesn't propose why they actually are doing better.
Click to expand...

I approve of myth busting but that article isnt very good really, in some places it could be in danger of introducing its own myths in place of the ones it is seeking to debunk. Theres no depth to it, eg they talk about the timing of Germanys measures only in relation to the timing of other countries, not in relation to the stage that Germanys own epidemic had reached at that moment in time. And they favour anecdotes over data.

I dont really want to judge Germany in detail until I see their proper mortality data (equivalent to UK ONS data on deaths, both those labelled Covid-19 and excess mortality in general), and how they do in the coming weeks and months with less lockdown.

I've probably already spoken in the past of areas I will want to look at with Germany as potential reasons for their success. If their excess winter mortality is usually much lower than ours, which I think I read somewhere but havent followed up on, then it shouldnt be surprising if their mortality rates during a pandemic are also lower. And we should be looking at what features in Germany during normal times are responsible for that. I dont know what they are, but I would certainly want to look at what their hospital infetion control is like, and the culture around such matters, eg do they have less doctors etc with dodgy personal hygiene than the UK? What were their policies like in terms of the transfer of people between hospital and care homes? Would such transfers be backed up by testing, both in normal times and in this pandemic? What were their hospital admission policies like? And I'm sure plenty of other things I havent thought of.

Not too long ago Whitty said that when he spoke to his German colleagues, they werent sure about the reasons for their relative success either. It is convenient for Whitty to make this claim, but its also quite possible that there is some truth to it.

Another thing to consider when asking 'why has country x done well?', is that the same questions can be asked of certain regions of countries where the country was very badly affected in some places, but not in those regions. That at least allows national policies to be removed from the equation, but I get the idea the regional stuff is seen as less intriguing, that many of the reasons seem so obvious that there isnt so much to ponder.
 
Preprint (not peer reviewed yet) that highlights the fact this virus could, and did, travel at 0.85 Mach. It suggests (perhaps not entirely surprisingly) that air travel was a major contributor to the rapidity of spread at global scale - "global connections, represented by countries importance in the global air transportation network, is the main explanation for the growth rate of COVID-19 in different countries".
DOI: 10.1101/2020.04.02.20050773

Meanwhile researchers spot SARS-CoV-2 RNA in COVID-19 patients' semen, raising the possibility (though perhaps a slim one) of sexual transmission (cf ebola, zika). Though transmission via the respiratory route during sex is almost certainly more likely anyway.
uk.reuters.com

Reuters | Breaking International News & Views

Find latest news from every corner of the globe at Reuters.com, your online source for breaking international news coverage.
uk.reuters.com uk.reuters.com
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.8292
 
Read an interesting thing in new scientist saying that in Australia they might actually experience a decrease, rather than increase, in deaths this year. This because they did the lockdown etc while managing to get away with hardly any covid deaths - but the lockdown has reduced the transmission of seasonal flu compared to a 'normal' year. I wonder if this means they will see a surge in seasonal flu deaths next year.

This also made me wonder... is the fact that they are southern hemisphere part of the explanation for aus and nz's success? In other words in February when it seems the virus really took off outside china, were europeans all crowded indoors while antipodeans were at the beach?
 
Trump admin allegedly told CDC its reopening guide would "never see the light of day."


arstechnica.com

CDC guide to reopening was trashed by the Trump admin. It just leaked

Trump admin allegedly told CDC its reopening guide would “never see the light of day.”…
arstechnica.com arstechnica.com

The link in the quote takes you to the CDC document

Public health experts at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have leaked their recommendations on how to safely reopen businesses amid the COVID-19 pandemic—after officials in the Trump administration rejected the guidance and allegedly told CDC officials their plan would "never see the light of day."


The 17-page document (PDF found here) was initially set to be published last Friday but was nixed. Instead, it was released to the Associated Press by a CDC official who was not authorized to release it.
Click to expand...
 
Queensland, What can you do from Saturday May 16?
  • Gatherings of a maximum of 10 people in a public place
  • Dining in at restaurants, pubs, clubs, RSLs and cafes for a maximum of 10 patrons at one time (no bars or gaming)
  • Recreational travel of a radius of up to 150km from your home for day trips
  • Some beauty therapies and nail salons for up to 10 people at one time
  • Reopening of libraries, playground equipment, skate parks and outdoor gyms with a maximum of 10 people at one time
  • Wedding guests increase to 10 people
  • Funeral attendance increased to 20 people (30 outdoors)
  • Open homes and auctions with a maximum of 10 people at one time
  • Reopening of public pools and lagoons with a maximum of 10 people at a time or greater numbers with an approved plan
 
Mr Retro said:
From the Lancet. Author is Sweden's former state epidemiologist. Saying lockdowns are only good for relieving the burden on health service and we're all getting infected with Coronavirus 2

Click to expand...

Awful. This pandemic has lowered my opinion of Sweden significantly.

Take this sentence about hard lockdown:

Neither does it decrease mortality from COVID-19, which is evident when comparing the UK's experience with that of other European countries
Click to expand...

No mention of the timing of lockdown relative to stage of epidemic in a country at the time, and what effect this has.

Some aspects of what is said do need to be kept in mind, but the whole thing seems to just boil down to apologism for Swedens shitty approach. So much missing, including the actions of many other countries and the impact they had.
 
Its also not the only stuff from Sweden that has started using the terrible situation in care homes as a defence of their policies elsewhere.

Again, there are some important points which are not untrue, but the way its being used to justify the rest of their shit disgusts me.


Tegnell told The Daily Show's Trevor Noah (scroll down to watch the video) that accepting a higher death toll initially if it meant a better result in the long run was never part of Sweden's strategy when it came to fighting the novel coronavirus.

"We calculated on more people being sick, but the death toll really came as a surprise to us," he said. "We really thought our elderly homes would be much better at keeping this disease outside of them then they have actually been.

"Not that Sweden is the only country with this problem, many countries in Europe have problems with elderly homes. It's very difficult to keep the disease away from there. Even if we are doing our best, it's obviously not enough.

"We are not putting anybody's lives above everybody else's lives, that's not the way we're working."
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

editor
Professional football and coronavirus
Replies
6
Views
579
elbows
elbows
hipipol
Vitamin D and coronavirus
2 3 4
Replies
114
Views
5K
SheilaNaGig
S
weltweit
Omicron news
27 28 29 30 31
Replies
908
Views
39K
elbows
elbows
editor
  • Poll
Have you had Covid-19/coronavirus and how bad was it?
2
Replies
51
Views
3K
editor
editor
Sasaferrato
  • Sticky
Coronavirus in the UK - news, lockdown and discussion
1588 1589 1590 1591 1592
Replies
48K
Views
2M
gentlegreen
gentlegreen
Back
Top Bottom