Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Tywin et al.

COVID-19 #13 or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Disease

Recommended Posts

On 5/11/2020 at 11:29 AM, Fragile Bird said:

China reported 17 new cases today. 10 cases were brought in by people returning from overseas. But. There were 5 new cases in Wuhan, the first cases since early April. If those cases were brought in by people who travelled outside of Wuhan, that's one thing, but if the people have no links to travellers, where the heck did the virus come from?

Well, the Chinese want to know that too, it seems. They want to test the entire population of Wuhan. Eleven million of people. 

I don't know what to make out of this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rotting sea cow said:

Well, the Chinese want to know that too, it seems. They want to test the entire population of Wuhan. Eleven million of people. 

I don't know what to make out of this

The Internet is screaming "The Chinese are lying, nobody tests 11 M people for 6 cases, it must be 6,000 cases, it must be 60,000 cases!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Fragile Bird said:

The Internet is screaming "The Chinese are lying, nobody tests 11 M people for 6 cases, it must be 6,000 cases, it must be 60,000 cases!"

They might even right. The Chinese want to know that too. It might well possible there is - again - a silent outbreak ongoing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

The Internet is screaming "The Chinese are lying, nobody tests 11 M people for 6 cases, it must be 6,000 cases, it must be 60,000 cases!"

While it does sound like an intimidating logistical challenge there are several countries which have tested more than 10% of their population, 11 million tests in China would be less than 1% of their total population - although they do seem to be intending to do it in a shorter time period which would increase the difficulty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A little update on Sweden. First, today they released some information regarding a sampling of people in week 17 (specifically form April 21 to April 24th) across the country, and found 0.9% returned as having active infections.  The subsection for Stockholm County, a quarter of the tests, showed 2.3% active infection at that time. During week 14, testing in Stockholm showed 2.5% with active infections.

This survey will be repeated every few weeks to show development over time.

Next week they will present results of antibody testing from, I think. week 17 as well,  but that'll capture the picture of the situation 2-3 weeks earlier as I understand it.

In a different vein, Joakim Rocklöv -- one of the more trenchant critics of FHM's approach for a time, and still a bit skeptical but he has recently distanced himself from a group of much more outspoken detractors who repeatedly shot their credibility to shreds with bad modelling and decidedly uncivil language (calling FHM's modellers 'untalented') -- has revised a paper that in its earlier version from early April painted a very negative picture of the situation in Sweden, and presently he finds that Sweden's efforts were largely successful to its stated goals (he doesn'tcome out and say it but he essentially indicates that their 'simple' models were more correct than his own), and were much more effective in reducing R than he gave it credit for. However, he also proposes that with a 10% improvement in effective infectious period (from an average of 3.3 days to 3 days -- this is more a mathematical construct than representing actual infectiousness for any one individual) that he thinks deaths could be nearly halved by September 1st and some 1.5 million fewer people would be infected. The paper lays out all the math for those interested in epidemiological models.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do people think the odds of this might be?

Not a random kook, he's a staff writer for The Atlantic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Fez said:

What do people think the odds of this might be?

Not a random kook, he's a staff writer for The Atlantic.

I’m sorry, I’m being a bit thick, what does this mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Fragile Bird said:

I’m sorry, I’m being a bit thick, what does this mean?

If I'm following it right it would mean that if they're doing 20k tests for active virus and 80k for antibodies they are reporting their total tests as 100k even though 80% of those tests can't identify active cases. So their active infections number will be artificially suppressed while their recovered number would look higher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/11/2020 at 7:29 PM, Fragile Bird said:

 

China reported 17 new cases today. 10 cases were brought in by people returning from overseas. But. There were 5 new cases in Wuhan, the first cases since early April. If those cases were brought in by people who travelled outside of Wuhan, that's one thing, but if the people have no links to travellers, where the heck did the virus come from?

 

I presume the virus could lurk around in minor chains of infection that don't become obvious until someone goes to hospital. People can have it and recover or have it and die with no record of having it, meanwhile having passed it on, maybe not to enough people to make an observable cluster. Or as you say, from outside Wuhan.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Castellan said:

I presume the virus could lurk around in minor chains of infection that don't become obvious until someone goes to hospital. People can have it and recover or have it and die with no record of having it, meanwhile having passed it on, maybe not to enough people to make an observable cluster. Or as you say, from outside Wuhan.

I don't think there's anything surprising in this happening, it would possibly have been more unlikely that they had managed to completely eradicate the virus in Wuhan.

Viruses tend to be tricky to completely stamp out, I remember reading recently about the current ebola outbreak in the Congo that they were one day away from declaring it as officially over because it had been many weeks since the last case and then they found a new case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, rotting sea cow said:

Ok. This explains a lot the issue. What about the meat? Is it getting contaminated?

I've also read that since meat packing plants are mostly refrigerated, the virus can survive longer.  As well, I'd assume the ventilation systems are even more closed than in typical buildings to keep them more energy efficient.  But that latter is purely my speculation.

Best practice is to marinate your steak in clorox though.  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if it's been brought up before but - here's an article on the possibility of SARS-CoV2 persistence in the semen of recovering patients. There's reference to one study which indicates this, and a coulple with opposing results. 

Before anyone asks, here's how the first study got their info (not explicably, but you get the picture).

Quote

Among 50 patients identified, 12 patients were unable to provide a semen specimen because of erectile dysfunction, being in a comatose state, or dying prior to recruitment; therefore, a total of 38 patients were enrolled for semen testing. Of these 38 participants who provided a semen specimen, 23 participants (60.5%) had achieved clinical recovery and 15 participants (39.5%) were at the acute stage of infection.

It brings to the fore immunopriviledged sites.

Immune priviledged sites are fascinating. They include the Eyes, Brain, Pacenta and Fetus, Testes and Central Nervous System. Basically, these are the diplomatic immunity zones where the local immunity police cannot go. They are foreign turf. 

Unfortunately viruses have figured out they can harbour in these sites when the going gets tough for them outside the sites. And by harbour it is suggested they cannot replicate here, but may persist. This has been shown with Zika, HIV and Ebola. And now possibly SARS-CoV2. The fuckers!
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, williamjm said:

While it does sound like an intimidating logistical challenge there are several countries which have tested more than 10% of their population, 11 million tests in China would be less than 1% of their total population - although they do seem to be intending to do it in a shorter time period which would increase the difficulty.

Apparently they are not going to individually test everyone. Internet wisdom suggest they are going to make chunks of people, mix the samples and test them together. If tests come back negative these groups are fine. If tests come back positive, test them again individually.  That way they need far less tests than the population and can be done much faster. The idea is to do everything within a week or two.

BTW. It is suggested that Germany and Russia are doing exactly that, which explain the huge number of testing they are doing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Ran said:

A little update on Sweden. First, today they released some information regarding a sampling of people in week 17 (specifically form April 21 to April 24th) across the country, and found 0.9% returned as having active infections.  The subsection for Stockholm County, a quarter of the tests, showed 2.3% active infection at that time. During week 14, testing in Stockholm showed 2.5% with active infections.

This survey will be repeated every few weeks to show development over time.

Next week they will present results of antibody testing from, I think. week 17 as well,  but that'll capture the picture of the situation 2-3 weeks earlier as I understand it.

In a different vein, Joakim Rocklöv -- one of the more trenchant critics of FHM's approach for a time, and still a bit skeptical but he has recently distanced himself from a group of much more outspoken detractors who repeatedly shot their credibility to shreds with bad modelling and decidedly uncivil language (calling FHM's modellers 'untalented') -- has revised a paper that in its earlier version from early April painted a very negative picture of the situation in Sweden, and presently he finds that Sweden's efforts were largely successful to its stated goals (he doesn'tcome out and say it but he essentially indicates that their 'simple' models were more correct than his own), and were much more effective in reducing R than he gave it credit for. However, he also proposes that with a 10% improvement in effective infectious period (from an average of 3.3 days to 3 days -- this is more a mathematical construct than representing actual infectiousness for any one individual) that he thinks deaths could be nearly halved by September 1st and some 1.5 million fewer people would be infected. The paper lays out all the math for those interested in epidemiological models.

 

I'm starting to think that,  at least in the Northern Hemisphere, the best idea is to have huge chunks of the population infected before the next winter (of course trying to put protections for the vulnerable). If immunity is a thing of course. Immunological defences are typically higher in summer and people naturally don't go into close quarters, reducing the number of infections to a more manageable level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://the-journal.com/articles/176080

Doctors Without Borders deploying to Navajo Nation in New Mexico.

By the way, this story is location-sited as from Farmington New Mexico, outside the rez (like Grants is) which story does not include the information that the 'white' residents of Farmington are militantly demanding reopening, despite the governor's call not to.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/12/us/politics/farmington-nm-jobs-coronavirus-reopening.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Get outdoors where there is superior air circulation and sunshine. It's your healthiest course imo.

Biologist: Avoid these places to protect against Covid-19

https://www.cnn.com/videos/health/2020/05/13/coronavirus-covid-19-enclosed-spaces-spread-new-day-vpx.cnn

The healthiest course from a virus point of view is staying at home all the time to avoid contact with other people completly. This is only a privilege the rich and the office worker caste have in most places of course. Might not be healthy from a mental health and exercise point of view though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, rotting sea cow said:

Apparently they are not going to individually test everyone. Internet wisdom suggest they are going to make chunks of people, mix the samples and test them together. If tests come back negative these groups are fine. If tests come back positive, test them again individually.  That way they need far less tests than the population and can be done much faster. The idea is to do everything within a week or two.

It does seem like a sensible approach if the expectation is that only a very small proportion of the tests are going to be positive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, rotting sea cow said:

Apparently they are not going to individually test everyone. Internet wisdom suggest they are going to make chunks of people, mix the samples and test them together. If tests come back negative these groups are fine. If tests come back positive, test them again individually.  That way they need far less tests than the population and can be done much faster. The idea is to do everything within a week or two.

BTW. It is suggested that Germany and Russia are doing exactly that, which explain the huge number of testing they are doing.

 

Yeah the more I personally play around with the qPCR testing protocol the less a fan of this approach I am. It invalidates a control, and it's also going to reduce the sensitivity of the test several fold and so increase the false negative rate (which already seems to be abnormally high for this virus). I've been playing with the detection limit a little for our wastewater project, and seems to be around ~250 virions per sample, which is pretty in line with what others are publishing. So if you're ending up with a 5-10 fold reduction simply due to not putting as much of each sample into the assay it isn't great. OTOH I guess if you're doing it on a population basis on people who wouldn't otherwise be tested it's a decent idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...