Coronavirus - Health and preparedness aspects - II

Status
Not open for further replies.
A very interesting article in today’s South China Morning Post (here)

Titled “Coronavirus: South Korea’s aggressive testing gives clues to true fatality rate” it looks at mortality rates for COVID-19 in South Korea, which are much lower than reported in China or elsewhere, 0.6% vs 3.4%. One hypothesis is Korea is conducting far more tests than any other country, this detects many more low grade cases, raising the total number of infected, and resulting in a far lower mortality rate.

While this is not reason to relax or stop with preventive measures, it is a whisper of hope things are not as dire.

The WHO report put out on Feb 28 already noted that the fatality rate in China outside of Wuhan and after Feb 1 was 0.7%, compared to 17.3% for earlier cases inside Wuhan.

Obviously, the key here is to slow down the spread of the virus, in order to not overwhelm the healthcare facilities. If it takes some mass hysteria to get people to pay attention, is it worth it? I think so. :)

The CFR in the following excerpt means "crude fatality rate". I believe "crude" means that this number includes every patient and does not distinguish between old and young, healthy or already compromised patients. Of course we know that the above factors have a major effect.

In China, the overall CFR was higher in the early stages of the outbreak (17.3% for cases with symptom onset from 1-10 January) and has reduced over time to 0.7% for patients with symptom onset after 1 February (Figure 4).
 
Last edited:
Obviously, the key here is to slow down the spread of the virus, in order to not overwhelm the healthcare facilities. If it takes some mass hysteria to get people to pay attention, is it worth it? I think so. :)

See, now that is another positive thought. In this day and age where attention spans are measured in minutes, a little hysteria might do some good to slow down the spread and allow hospitals to cope with sick patients. At the very least if it causes people to wash hands more and use sanitizers, it can't be all bad.
 
There's nothing as effective as a threat - non-empty one I hasten to add - that "you are gonna die" to stop people from picking their nose in public. :cool:

Please, do that in the privacy of your home, and after washing hands very very carefully. :)
 
A very interesting article in today’s South China Morning Post (here)

Titled “Coronavirus: South Korea’s aggressive testing gives clues to true fatality rate” it looks at mortality rates for COVID-19 in South Korea, which are much lower than reported in China or elsewhere, 0.6% vs 3.4%. One hypothesis is Korea is conducting far more tests than any other country, this detects many more low grade cases, raising the total number of infected, and resulting in a far lower mortality rate.


While this is not reason to relax or stop with preventive measures, it is a whisper of hope things are not as dire.

I think the number of infections exploded when someone from a cult group got infected, so it will be interesting to see how the numbers will be in the next two to three weeks. I saw a news video clip of an American journalist going through the South Korean drive-through. It looked like the procedure was very efficient, the workers well protected (a 5-hour shift with no bathroom breaks in fully protected gear) and trained, and they will give the test to anybody who comes through. And it didn't even look that busy, with multiple stations set up. The drive-through test is ingenious as it minimizes exposure. You're supposed to get your results in 2 to 3 days...
 
Last edited:
Article from the local newspaper.

Purell hand sanitizer is made by GOJO which is a local company. One of our grocery chains is limiting sales of Purell to holders of their customer loyalty cards.

https://www.mytownneo.com/article/20200304/NEWS/303049862

Purell won't be on the shelves but loyalty card holders can pick up 3 bottles at the pharmacy or the customer service counter.

I have one of their loyalty cards on my key chain although I don't shop there often.
 
Article from the local newspaper.

Purell hand sanitizer is made by GOJO which is a local company. One of our grocery chains is limiting sales of Purell to holders of their customer loyalty cards.

https://www.mytownneo.com/article/20200304/NEWS/303049862

Purell won't be on the shelves but loyalty card holders can pick up 3 bottles at the pharmacy or the customer service counter.

I have one of their loyalty cards on my key chain although I don't shop there often.

So...what's to stop people from signing up for a loyalty card just to get the Purell?
 
So...what's to stop people from signing up for a loyalty card just to get the Purell?

My guess is that 90% of the households already are loyalty card holders. If you don't shop there often you shop there occasionally and already have the card. The loyalty card is free and has the normal discount perks and a fuel perks program.
 
Health officials in King County, WA, ...They are asking people with flu-like symptoms not to go to the ER unless they are really sick. This allows them to treat more severe cases.

That's a load of crap. Go RIGHT AWAY so you are in time to be treated for seasonal flu with Tamiflu etc before the antiviral is not effective.
 
That's a load of crap. Go RIGHT AWAY so you are in time to be treated for seasonal flu with Tamiflu etc before the antiviral is not effective.

Calm down a little please. I believe the key point here is not to go to the ER for the flu - go to your normal doctor.
 
Here’s an article by Stat, usually behind a paywall, but giving free access to their coverage of COVID-19. It’s a very detailed demographic breakdown of the fatalities in China through mid-February. This is very much a respiratory disease affecting people that are older and with other underlying conditions.

https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/03...ail&utm_term=0_c9dfd39373-0ebb957e06-44296285

Thanks for posting this. I had been wondering if this kind of analysis of the fatality rate based on demographics had been done, and this is exactly that. As a healthy guy in my early 50s, I'm encouraged to see that the CFR for my demographic group is quite low, at around 1%. Might be even lower, in actuality, since the statistics in the quoted article are from the outbreak in China and not from other (newer, more accurate?) sources like South Korea.
 
That's a load of crap. Go RIGHT AWAY so you are in time to be treated for seasonal flu with Tamiflu etc before the antiviral is not effective.

I'd say it depends on your age and general health condition. I've had the flu several times in my life, before I started getting regular flu vaccines. I've never sought medical treatment for it, just self-care at home with OTC stuff. Maybe a regular doctor visit or a visit to an urgent care center would be more appropriate, under the circumstances. I'd guess that unless someone is having obvious severe trouble breathing, you're going to be moved to the back of the line until they deal with those who are. If indeed it is the flu, it wouldn't be wise to have to be exposed to people who really might have a severe case of the coronavirus, who really need the ER.
 
DW was scheduled to go to an annual convention in Orlando next week. Typically attended by 45K people. Her manager told her not to go a couple days ago, and just now they cancelled the whole event. Wow, someone is out a bunch of money.

Better safe than sorry though....
 
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2749214

September 3, 2019
N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel
A Randomized Clinical Trial

Lewis J. Radonovich Jr, MD1 snip
JAMA. 2019;322(9):824-833. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.11645

Question Is the use of N95 respirators or medical masks more effective in preventing influenza infection among outpatient health care personnel in close contact with patients with suspected respiratory illness?

Findings In this pragmatic, cluster randomized clinical trial involving 2862 health care personnel, there was no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza among health care personnel with the use of N95 respirators (8.2%) vs medical masks (7.2%).

Meaning As worn by health care personnel in this trial, use of N95 respirators, compared with medical masks, in the outpatient setting resulted in no significant difference in the rates of laboratory-confirmed influenza.
Abstract

Importance Clinical studies have been inconclusive about the effectiveness of N95 respirators and medical masks in preventing health care personnel (HCP) from acquiring workplace viral respiratory infections.

Objective To compare the effect of N95 respirators vs medical masks for prevention of influenza and other viral respiratory infections among HCP.

Design, Setting, and Participants A cluster randomized pragmatic effectiveness study conducted at 137 outpatient study sites at 7 US medical centers between September 2011 and May 2015, with final follow-up in June 2016. Each year for 4 years, during the 12-week period of peak viral respiratory illness, pairs of outpatient sites (clusters) within each center were matched and randomly assigned to the N95 respirator or medical mask groups.

Interventions Overall, 1993 participants in 189 clusters were randomly assigned to wear N95 respirators (2512 HCP-seasons of observation) and 2058 in 191 clusters were randomly assigned to wear medical masks (2668 HCP-seasons) when near patients with respiratory illness.

Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza. Secondary outcomes included incidence of acute respiratory illness, laboratory-detected respiratory infections, laboratory-confirmed respiratory illness, and influenzalike illness. Adherence to interventions was assessed.

Results Among 2862 randomized participants (mean [SD] age, 43 [11.5] years; 2369 [82.8%]) women), 2371 completed the study and accounted for 5180 HCP-seasons. There were 207 laboratory-confirmed influenza infection events (8.2% of HCP-seasons) in the N95 respirator group and 193 (7.2% of HCP-seasons) in the medical mask group (difference, 1.0%, [95% CI, −0.5% to 2.5%]; P = .18) (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.18 [95% CI, 0.95-1.45]).

There were 1556 acute respiratory illness events in the respirator group vs 1711 in the mask group (difference, −21.9 per 1000 HCP-seasons [95% CI, −48.2 to 4.4]; P = .10); 679 laboratory-detected respiratory infections in the respirator group vs 745 in the mask group (difference, −8.9 per 1000 HCP-seasons, [95% CI, −33.3 to 15.4]; P = .47); 371 laboratory-confirmed respiratory illness events in the respirator group vs 417 in the mask group (difference, −8.6 per 1000 HCP-seasons [95% CI, −28.2 to 10.9]; P = .39);

and 128 influenzalike illness events in the respirator group vs 166 in the mask group (difference, −11.3 per 1000 HCP-seasons [95% CI, −23.8 to 1.3]; P = .08).

In the respirator group, 89.4% of participants reported “always” or “sometimes” wearing their assigned devices vs 90.2% in the mask group.

Conclusions and Relevance Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza.

Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01249625
 
A very interesting article in today’s South China Morning Post (here)

Titled “Coronavirus: South Korea’s aggressive testing gives clues to true fatality rate” it looks at mortality rates for COVID-19 in South Korea, which are much lower than reported in China or elsewhere, 0.6% vs 3.4%. One hypothesis is Korea is conducting far more tests than any other country, this detects many more low grade cases, raising the total number of infected, and resulting in a far lower mortality rate.


While this is not reason to relax or stop with preventive measures, it is a whisper of hope things are not as dire.

Maybe the South China Morning Post is following ER.org and saw my post from a couple/few days ago South Korea? :)
 
Calm down a little please. I believe the key point here is not to go to the ER for the flu - go to your normal doctor.

Yes. You can rush to the ER, wait for a long time, just to be turned away if you have a simple cold or flu. See your regular doctor first.

The following is from King County, WA, health department, where the outbreak occurred at a nursing home:

For general public

  • Even if you are not ill, avoid visiting hospitals, long term care facilities or nursing homes to the extent possible. If you do need to visit one of these facilities limit your time there and keep 6 feet away from patients.
  • Do not go to the emergency room unless essential. Emergency rooms need to be able to serve those with the most critical needs. If you have symptoms like cough, fever, or other respiratory problems, contact your regular doctor first.
  • Stay home when sick.
  • Practice excellent personal hygiene habits, including washing your hands with soap and water frequently, coughing into a tissue or your elbow, and avoid touching your eyes, nose, or mouth.
  • Stay away from people who are ill, especially if you are at higher risk for coronavirus.
  • Clean frequently touched surfaces and objects (like doorknobs and light switches). Regular household cleaners are effective.
  • Avoid touching your eyes, nose, and mouth unless you''ve just washed your hands.
  • Get plenty of rest, drink plenty of fluids, eat healthy foods, and manage your stress to keep your immunity strong.
  • Stay informed. Information is changing frequently. Check and subscribe to Public Health's website (www.kingcounty.gov/COVID) or blog (www.publichealthinsider.com).
 
Another less gloomy thought is that there is no scientific "law" that says a vaccine or anti viral medication has to take a year to test.

This country built an atomic bomb using slide rules, in under 3 years.

One of the main reasons people are saying something will not be ready for a year is they are using old thinking, that a medicine must be extensively tested before being offered to the public. I think that is out the door if we have overflowing hospital beds and we could have a widely distributed anti-viral medication in a few months.

Reminds me of a Stargate Atlantis episode, "Poisoning the Well". (Season 1, Episode 7). In it, they visit a planet ("The Hoffans") who get mostly wiped out every once in a while from the Wrath. The Hoffans work on a vaccine that will make them undesirable to being culled by the Wrath. They are in such a hurry to complete it that they forgo adequate testing. When they find out that it kills about half of those given the vaccine, they still proceed with the vaccine.
 
Looking for the differential diagnosis between seasonal flu, common cold, and COVID-19. They say the symptoms are "different" but I can't find the details.

All I have found is about hospitalized patients.
 
Reminds me of a Stargate Atlantis episode, "Poisoning the Well". (Season 1, Episode 7). In it, they visit a planet ("The Hoffans") who get mostly wiped out every once in a while from the Wrath. The Hoffans work on a vaccine that will make them undesirable to being culled by the Wrath. They are in such a hurry to complete it that they forgo adequate testing. When they find out that it kills about half of those given the vaccine, they still proceed with the vaccine.


Yeah. Retired from a 30+ year career in FDA regulated healthcare. You DO need to do adequate testing. Always.

Google Thalidomide
 
Yeah. Retired from a 30+ year career in FDA regulated healthcare. You DO need to do adequate testing. Always.

Google Thalidomide

If something is killing 3% and the side effects of a treatment kill 0.01%, some might still take it
 
If something is killing 3% and the side effects of a treatment kill 0.01%, some might still take it
Thalidomide didn't kill. It maimed. But anyway...

I've heard rumors and rumblings that some other countries (China?) might be willing to fast track testing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom