COVID-19 Pandemic: Transmissions, Deaths, Treatments, Vaccines, Interventions and More...
- Thread starter RU848789
- Start date
- Status
We agree that social distancing is the best way to reduce transmissions, but where that doesn't happen, either through stupidity or impossibility (mass transit), masks are also very effective. Salons are a perfect case of that, as it's impossible to do hair or nails while being 6 feet away and this at least implies that masks are a great secondary preventative. And we know from other outbreaks that the virus is still plenty contagious when masks aren't worn.
Worldwide cases are up significantly over the past month, although deaths have not started to rise yet (but likely will, as there's a 2-4 week lag usually; but then again the cases are up mostly in poorer countries with ineffective health care/monitoring systems, so deaths will likely not be well reported there), so the virus is still wreaking havoc. Just not here, as should be expected given the stay at home orders and moderately good social distancing/mask-wearing.
As I said a few weeks ago, expect a slow burn in the US, where cases/deaths continue dropping in the hardest hit areas, where compliance was best, while they will likely be steady or slowly decreasing in many other locations that reopened earlier and/or aren't as compliant with distancing/mask-wearing. Cases in the US have decreased from about 30K/day to 20K/day (very roughly speaking) and almost all of that is due to NY and NJ, combined, decreasing by about 10K/day. Deaths have decreased more proportionally vs. cases, which could be do to better treatments (plasma, remdesivir, better procedures).
It would be great if we were as compliant as some other countries, but we're not, so I doubt we're going to see case/death rates going down to South Korea, Japan or Taiwan levels. 500-750 deaths per day is way better than 3000+/day, but still works out to 15-22K/month or 180-264K in a year. We can all hope the virus weakens or that many people have built in immunities and won't catch it or that we'll have a cure soon and a vaccine not too far down the road, but we have no proof of the first two and we can't be sure a cure/vaccine will be here that soon, which is why masks/distancing remain so important (along with testing, tracing and isolating).
I am not saying the virus is weakening, but you have to admit these world graphs do suggest it is possible:
The daily cases worldwide are still increasing and yet the death rate is dropping significantly.
Just posted about that. Yes, it's obviously possible, but with no science behind that hypothesis yet, I think it's more likely that we're now seeing some combination of better treatments (plasma/remdesivir and others) and better medical understanding interventions, combined with the fact that the major case increases are in countries likely to have "issues" with accurate death accounting (Russia, Brazil, India and much of South/Central America). That is an educated guess though - not sure I've seen a detailed analysis of that yet.
The daily cases are increasing in some places but because testing has skyrocketed from less then 100k a day to approaching 500k a day in the US from early April to now. And new hosptal cases have dropped even more significantly. Percentage of confirmed cases was nearly 25% in early April and now is around 3% and dropping everyday.I am not saying the virus is weakening, but you have to admit these world graphs do suggest it is possible:
The daily cases worldwide are still increasing and yet the death rate is dropping significantly.
It “clearly” does not. Why do you do this?
Have always agreed in tight quarters masks provide some help but in hospitals and nursing homes masks aren't as effective as you state. These people have always worn gloves, masks and in some cases shields even before this. The real #'s , no pun intended, but masks do not the stop spread in close contact. Yes they filter out some but it's like being a little pregnant. It's not as effective and not even close to social distancing. As far as the numbers of deaths you can't use daily totals as an indicator. Some people die quickly but others hang on for weeks and finally lose the battle.
There is no dispute that those infected now are not requiring hospitalization as in the beginning. Unfortunately I had to see that first hand recently. Emergency wards are empty, I mean like a UConn Football game empty.
He's an admitted troll - it's what he does. He enjoys derailing threads and sowing discord, with his stated goal of having the thread devolve into a political namecalling mess, so that it gets moved to the CE board, where it will cease to have any use. And yet somehow he was the Mayor of Montgomery Twp, as I assume he never shows this side to that crowd. It's fascinating and annoying at the same time.
Stupid graph as it doesn't include the number of tests. In countries that test more have more. The % is the key. Low tests numbers usually mean they are only testing suspected sick people. Once you see increased testing the numbers drop dramatically as a %
Plenty of data and medical discussion coming out of Italy and other places. Sorry you don't like the topic, but that doesn't change anything about this legit conversation.
Looks like you may be right and if so, kudos for sniffing this out early on the Lancet article, although the NEJM article I've been talking about with regard to HCQ has no issues I know of (it was an NEJM article by the same author with Surgisphere data on ACE inhibitors that is in question). If Surgisphere was cooking the books, someone needs to be fried over this, as that's really bad. If it's just sloppiness, they need to be reprimanded, share the data, and the papers withdrawn, fixed and resubmitted with whatever the correct data/results are. I know the world is an imperfect place, but scientists really need to do better. Maybe I'm a bit naive on that point, as I was always so adamant that the science that I did or my group did and that we published in either papers or regulatory filings for new drugs had to be above reproach.
Good article on this mess from Science - and this also potentially taints the ivermectin finding (which I questioned, despite having a personal interest in it, as I worked on that compound 30 years ago) and the ACE-inhibitor paper. This is also why I'm glad I didn't go to the mat over the Lancet paper with you, as it was always possible something was wrong (which I acknowledged in my responses to you and Quay's article, when I tried to analyze the data and look for different explanations).
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/202...papers-top-medical-journals-may-be-unraveling
But, as many (including me) have been saying for 2 months now, most of the research on HCQ/combos in a hospitalized setting has not shown efficacy (the recent JAMA/NEJoM studies showing no HCQ efficacy had none of these patient data issues) and to me, the biggest indication that HCQ wasn't a gamechanger or even likely effective at all was the simple math that 60-85% of hospitalized NYC patients (and reportedly elsewhere in the US/Europe) were being treated with HCQ (as per the JAMA/NEJoM studies with thousands of patients) upon admission or soon thereafter and from 4/1 to 5/1 the NYC and US case fatality rates roughly doubled - surely if HCQ were a gamechanger or even mildly effective there would've been some clear positive signal in the mortality data.
You and many others have said much the same with regard to HCQ being more likely to be effective in mildly symptomatic patients or as a prophylactic and we should start seeing some of that data tomorrow from Boulware. As I said in my other post, let's hope we see positive results. Finally, there's simply no way, still, that so many people should've been treated with HCQ based largely on Raoult's discredited early study - we should've waited for controlled clinical trials like we did for remdesivir and others.
Again, no state is fully open, and as you mention we are seeing the cyclical nature of a virus. It is summer, there always was the expectation that this would have less of an impact during these months, and that is why the notion of a 2nd wave in fall makes sense, a 2nd wave requires a lull in between.
A second wave also requires that the virus mutation is worse than then the first which is rare.
Just another "scientist" trying to destroy HCQ solely because Trump supported it. The truth is HCQ is being widely used with the right patients in the right situations to help treat corona. It clearly has benefits.
Can't compare rates from when the virus was allowed to run rampant to now after months of a partial shutdown, masks, and social distancing.
And there is a big difference in getting a significantly smaller viral load of a virus and being "a little pregnant".
If it's legit, please cite one scientific source outside of this one doctor's opinion - dissenting opinions look to be unanimous as per the link. Which doesn't mean that he's wrong - who knows, maybe he'll win the Nobel Prize for this discovery...but in the world of science, usually scientists do the hard work and then publish their case for review rather than going to the press.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-h...e-of-coronavirus-losing-potency-idUKKBN23832J
I agree, we can't make definitive statements about if the virus is mutating and weakening, but:I am not saying the virus is weakening, but you have to admit these world graphs do suggest it is possible:
The daily cases worldwide are still increasing and yet the death rate is dropping significantly.
A)We are diagnosing way more people with the virus now
and as noted in my post above
B)With all the measures in place viral loads will be significantly less.
Wrong, I posted extreme skepticism on HCQ before Trump said a word.
FYI, my post wasn't about you. Definitely amusing that this was your knee jerk reaction to it.
:)
A second wave does not "require" a mutation to make the virus worse. A second wave could easily occur if this virus shows seasonality effects, like flu, wherein transmission is reduced due to the combination of increased temp/humidity (humidity especially reduces flu transmission, related to effectiveness of mucous membranes) and behavioral patterns with less people closed up inside at close quarters (nobody knows, for sure, if this will occur or is occurring). Once we're in fall, with schools open and these effects diminishing, we could see a 2nd wave, since the vast majority of Americans are not infected.
Keep in mind, also, that the flu only leads to symptomatic infections in ~10% of the population (as many are immune), while this is a new virus, which will likely infect 60-70% of the world, eventually, assuming no immunity/vaccine - and even if 30-40% of those infections are asymtomatic that leaves 60-70% being sympromatic, so 40-50% of the population could get symptomatic infections (way more than flu).
What's
I'd be curious of your thoughts on transmissibility in the fall related to antibody prevalence. If 15% of living Americans wereiwere in the Spring, then that's 15% who can't be vectors in the Fall, right? So then does that mean that whatever the transmissibility of the virus is (let's assume it's an R-naught of 1.15 with social distancing, masks, etc) then do you knock that down to 1.0 because 15 out of 100 are not able to be the receiver and then vector in the traditional R-naught model.?
Actually I amend my thought.
We could see a weakened virus have less of an impact, but still enough to have a second wave.
And NYC could be at 30% antibody now, likely even higher come fall, and higher still come winter.
I think I saw a Cuomo press conference where they estimate the Bronx to be 50%.
But I am trying to learn how that affects n-naught. My thought is it's linear, as anyone who has antibodies should just be taken out of the equation of being able to contract covid and then be a vector. Maybe we need 60-80% for herd immunity and to get it to die out on its own if we took no other measures, but if masks and distancing have lowered it to .8 across the metro, when seasonal conditions favor transmissibility again in the fall, I'm hoping what would have been 1.2 will be shunted down to .95 by the prevalence of antibodies.
Plenty of data? There isn’t plenty of data. Everyone is waiting for data and real scientific evidence because this would be great news. But there is not much yet aside from the small Italy report.
Absolutely - problem is the vast majority of the US likely has 2-4% infected. Only the hard hit NE urban corridor (and especially NYC metro, which includes NE NJ) have 10-20% with a few locations in NYC with up to 40-50%. But yes, whatever that percentage is it affects the R0 calculations (but it's not straight subtraction - it's more complex than that) and will help reduce transmission rates (partway to herd immunity helps). It's also why the "cross reactivity" potential I posted about a few times is so critical to understand. If there truly are some people who have "built-in" immunity, based on evaluation of unexposed people who have some level of memory T-cells that are active against the coronavirus in cell cultures - but it's not known yet if this confers immunity or even reduced impact if infected - then that could greatly change the calculus.
Edit - here's a great article I shared awhile back that shows a (relatively) simplified version of a model to calculate R0 (which is not a single unchanging number, but is dependent on many variables/behaviors in order to calculate the "effective" R0 vs. the "inherent" R0 if there were no interventions like masks/distancing). Other papers have far more involved math with serious differential equations.
https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication Files/20-112_4278525d-ccf2-4f8a-b564-2e95d0e7ca5b.pdf
Last edited:
Here's an article with some other experts' opinion on whether the virus is weakening.
From the article:
Columbia University’s Dr Angela Rasmussen said there is ‘no evidence that the virus is losing potency anywhere’. She said fewer cases, hospitalisations and deaths doesn’t mean the virus itself is any weaker then before.
Stanford University based epidemiologist Dr Seema Yasmin called for the report to be deleted, branding it ‘bulls**t’.
Professor Francois Balloux from University College London said: ‘There is no evidence for the SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) having become more or less virulent/transmissible.
‘The outbreak in Italy has been waning over recent weeks despite relaxation of the social distancing measures previously in place. This is line with what has been observed in most European countries.
‘The extent to which this is only due to residual social distancing measures in place, or whether seasonality or some other factors are playing a role remains debated. That said, we should definitely not rule out a second epidemic wave later this year.
‘The lockdowns were necessary to avoid hospital being overrun. Social distancing measures are being progressively relaxed in countries where the outbreak is under control. I do not believe these comments are helpful or reflect the current scientific evidence.
‘Viral load of swab tests will vary over the course of an infection. When compared on the same day post-infection, viral load can correlate with symptom severity.
‘Transmission outdoors is likely to be characterised by lower infectious dose and less severe symptoms, than transmission indoors. ‘There is no evidence the virus has lost ‘strength’ at this stage. We cannot rule out that some lineages will eventually evolve towards to lower symptom severity but this cannot be taken for granted.’
MRC-University of Glasgow Centre for Virus Research’s Dr Oscar MacLean said: ‘These claims are not supported by anything in the scientific literature, and also seem fairly implausible on genetic grounds.
‘The vast majority of SARS-CoV-2 mutations are extremely rare, and so whilst some infections may be attenuated by certain mutations, they are highly unlikely to be common enough to alter the nature of the virus at a national or global level.
‘We know that susceptibility to the virus significantly differs across age and risk groups, and so infection outcomes will also drastically differ across individuals.
‘As testing efforts are scaled up across the globe, asymptomatic and mild infections which previously would not have been detected, are now much more likely to be identified. It’s important not to confuse this with any weakening on the virus’s part.
‘Making these claims on the basis of anecdotal observations from swab tests is dangerous. Whilst weakening of the virus through mutations is theoretically possible, it is not something we should expect, and any claims of this nature would need to be verified in a more systematic way.
‘Without significantly stronger evidence, no one should unnecessarily downplay the danger this highly virulent virus poses, and risk the ongoing society-wide response.’
https://metro.co.uk/2020/06/02/coronavirus-becoming-less-potent-doctors-believe-weakening-12790604/
From the article:
Columbia University’s Dr Angela Rasmussen said there is ‘no evidence that the virus is losing potency anywhere’. She said fewer cases, hospitalisations and deaths doesn’t mean the virus itself is any weaker then before.
Stanford University based epidemiologist Dr Seema Yasmin called for the report to be deleted, branding it ‘bulls**t’.
Professor Francois Balloux from University College London said: ‘There is no evidence for the SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) having become more or less virulent/transmissible.
‘The outbreak in Italy has been waning over recent weeks despite relaxation of the social distancing measures previously in place. This is line with what has been observed in most European countries.
‘The extent to which this is only due to residual social distancing measures in place, or whether seasonality or some other factors are playing a role remains debated. That said, we should definitely not rule out a second epidemic wave later this year.
‘The lockdowns were necessary to avoid hospital being overrun. Social distancing measures are being progressively relaxed in countries where the outbreak is under control. I do not believe these comments are helpful or reflect the current scientific evidence.
‘Viral load of swab tests will vary over the course of an infection. When compared on the same day post-infection, viral load can correlate with symptom severity.
‘Transmission outdoors is likely to be characterised by lower infectious dose and less severe symptoms, than transmission indoors. ‘There is no evidence the virus has lost ‘strength’ at this stage. We cannot rule out that some lineages will eventually evolve towards to lower symptom severity but this cannot be taken for granted.’
MRC-University of Glasgow Centre for Virus Research’s Dr Oscar MacLean said: ‘These claims are not supported by anything in the scientific literature, and also seem fairly implausible on genetic grounds.
‘The vast majority of SARS-CoV-2 mutations are extremely rare, and so whilst some infections may be attenuated by certain mutations, they are highly unlikely to be common enough to alter the nature of the virus at a national or global level.
‘We know that susceptibility to the virus significantly differs across age and risk groups, and so infection outcomes will also drastically differ across individuals.
‘As testing efforts are scaled up across the globe, asymptomatic and mild infections which previously would not have been detected, are now much more likely to be identified. It’s important not to confuse this with any weakening on the virus’s part.
‘Making these claims on the basis of anecdotal observations from swab tests is dangerous. Whilst weakening of the virus through mutations is theoretically possible, it is not something we should expect, and any claims of this nature would need to be verified in a more systematic way.
‘Without significantly stronger evidence, no one should unnecessarily downplay the danger this highly virulent virus poses, and risk the ongoing society-wide response.’
https://metro.co.uk/2020/06/02/coronavirus-becoming-less-potent-doctors-believe-weakening-12790604/
Looks like this guy doesn't even understand his own data. His commentary is nothing more than opinion. I guess when one clicks on his twitter feed it's pretty easy to understand why he is casting it in this light.
there is literally a chart with the positivity rate and it is increasing..... not hard to understand unless you have a narrative.
Fascinating study in Science Advances, by a US-based research team who performed a detailed analysis of a large collection of viral genomes, finding that evolution pieced together the novel coronavirus from multiple parts through recombination, with most of the genome coming from bats, but also includind a key contribution from pangolins. First link is a summary of the article from arstechnica and 2nd link is the full paper, which is pretty deep stuff.
https://arstechnica.com/science/202...hybrid-of-viruses-from-two-different-species/
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/05/28/sciadv.abb9153
Nobody has yet found a host non-human animal with a nearly exact version of SARS-CoV-2 (as was eventually found for SARS and MERS), but the recombination analysis has a high degree of confidence and may be the best we can get, as finding such a virus in a host simply might not occur as per the excerpt below. The scary thought is that every expert virologist says that it's not a matter of if there will be a next pandemic, but when, and we had better learn the lessons of what we can do better for the next time.
While the SARS and MERS originating strains have been found in civets and dromedary camels respectively (14, 15), so far, efforts to identify a similarly close link in the original pathway of SARS-CoV-2 into humans have failed. If the new SARS-CoV-2 strain did not cause widespread infections in its natural or intermediate hosts, such a strain may never be identified. The close proximity of animals of different species in a wet market setting may increase the potential for cross-species spillover infections, by enabling recombination between more distant coronaviruses and the emergence of recombinants with novel phenotypes. While the direct reservoir of SARS-CoV-2 is still being sought, one thing is clear: reducing or eliminating direct human contact with wild animals is critical to preventing new coronavirus zoonosis in the future.
https://arstechnica.com/science/202...hybrid-of-viruses-from-two-different-species/
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/05/28/sciadv.abb9153
Nobody has yet found a host non-human animal with a nearly exact version of SARS-CoV-2 (as was eventually found for SARS and MERS), but the recombination analysis has a high degree of confidence and may be the best we can get, as finding such a virus in a host simply might not occur as per the excerpt below. The scary thought is that every expert virologist says that it's not a matter of if there will be a next pandemic, but when, and we had better learn the lessons of what we can do better for the next time.
While the SARS and MERS originating strains have been found in civets and dromedary camels respectively (14, 15), so far, efforts to identify a similarly close link in the original pathway of SARS-CoV-2 into humans have failed. If the new SARS-CoV-2 strain did not cause widespread infections in its natural or intermediate hosts, such a strain may never be identified. The close proximity of animals of different species in a wet market setting may increase the potential for cross-species spillover infections, by enabling recombination between more distant coronaviruses and the emergence of recombinants with novel phenotypes. While the direct reservoir of SARS-CoV-2 is still being sought, one thing is clear: reducing or eliminating direct human contact with wild animals is critical to preventing new coronavirus zoonosis in the future.
Revisiting the topic of China's lack of transparency in this pandemic. Interesting investigation by AP revealing that some WHO scientists were complaining back in January about the slow sharing of data and info from the growing outbreak at the time. I haven't been that impressed with the WHO throughout this (especially their recent poor mask guidance), but I also think the US take that they're in bed with China is overdone.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...s-world-health-organization-recordings-reveal
Anecdotal and can't be sure where he got it but one Ok. State linebacker tested positive for COVID and said he got it after attending protest in Tulsa.
From CNN:
Oklahoma State linebacker Amen Ogbongbemiga said in a tweet on Tuesday that he has tested positive for Covid-19 after attending a protest.
"After attending a protest in Tulsa AND being well protective of myself, I have tested positive for COVID-19," Ogbongbemiga tweeted. "Please, if you are going to protest, take care of yourself and stay safe."
Top doctor's warning: US Surgeon General Dr. Jerome Adams said in an interview with Politico on Monday to expect new outbreaks of the virus resulting from nationwide protests over the death of George Floyd that have seen thousands of people gather in close proximity.
"Based on the way the disease spreads, there is every reason to expect that we will see new clusters and potentially new outbreaks moving forward," Adams said.
From CNN:
Oklahoma State linebacker Amen Ogbongbemiga said in a tweet on Tuesday that he has tested positive for Covid-19 after attending a protest.
"After attending a protest in Tulsa AND being well protective of myself, I have tested positive for COVID-19," Ogbongbemiga tweeted. "Please, if you are going to protest, take care of yourself and stay safe."
Top doctor's warning: US Surgeon General Dr. Jerome Adams said in an interview with Politico on Monday to expect new outbreaks of the virus resulting from nationwide protests over the death of George Floyd that have seen thousands of people gather in close proximity.
"Based on the way the disease spreads, there is every reason to expect that we will see new clusters and potentially new outbreaks moving forward," Adams said.
Talk about fake news! Holy crap. What a bunch of BS.
- Status
Similar threads
