Coronavirus-losing-potency !!!!!!

[badatmath]

Cases in my state continue to rise. . .

[Midpack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by badatmath Cases in my state continue to rise. . .

Cases is the poorest indicator in some cases, more testing = more cases. Hospitalizations and deaths are better, per capita if you’re making comparisons to other states/countries.

[robnplunder]

Looking at the worldwide numbers, I don't see the death rate coming down. The epicenter has moved to Latin America and South Asia where I think more people are dying faster than being counted.

[Whisper66]

Quote:

Originally Posted by robnplunder Looking at the worldwide numbers, I don't see the death rate coming down. The epicenter has moved to Latin America and South Asia where I think more people are dying faster than being counted.

This data suggests a worldwide downward trend in deaths. Maybe you have other data to compare to?
(Ref: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/)

[mpeirce]

It could be seasonality. That would be a good thing.

A number of mechanisms could make sense for this from more vitamin D produced, more people outside who (a) are bathed in UV which kills viruses, or (b) so fewer people in closed spaces which does seem to facility transmission or (c) more fresh air and exercise, etc.

So many commingled variables. It'll be interesting to read all about it in 5 years when people look back and try to explain what happened.

[audreyh1]

Lack of large gatherings, social distancing, mask wearing in public. All reduce transmission. So it can simply be that these action make the virus appear less virulent when it’s simply that spread is occurring more slowly.

[Dalmore]

We should know something definite in the next 14 days or so. Lots of large gatherings happening with the protests.

[harllee]

If we can make it the next 2-3 weeks without a major uptick in the U.S. that will be a really great sign, considering the reopenings and the large gatherings.

[REWahoo]

Quote:

Coronavirus-losing-potency !!!!!!

Maybe not...

Experts dispute reports that coronavirus is becoming less lethal

Quote:

...a top official with the World Health Organization, who said Monday during an online news conference that “we need to be exceptionally careful not to create a sense that all of a sudden the virus by its own volition has now decided to be less pathogenic. That is not the case at all.” The consensus among other experts interviewed Monday is that the clinical findings in Italy likely do not reflect any change in the virus itself. Zangrillo’s clinical observations are more likely a reflection of the fact that with the peak of the outbreak long past, there is less virus in circulation, and people may be less likely to be exposed to high doses of it. In addition, only severely sick people were likely to be tested early on, compared with the situation now when even those with mild symptoms are more likely to get swabbed, experts said.

[audreyh1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dalmore We should know something definite in the next 14 days or so. Lots of large gatherings happening with the protests.

If a lot of demonstrators are wearing masks, and masks are effective, it may not.

[audreyh1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by REWahoo Maybe not... Experts dispute reports that coronavirus is becoming less lethal

I definitely have come to believe that it’s the size of the dose of exposure that can make a huge difference in how sick an individual gets. And a lot of things we are doing reduce the exposure. That’s certainly how I’m dealing with it - if I’m exposed, I want a small dose, so I take precautions.

Quote:

“I believe it’s safe to say that the differences that doctors are reporting in Italy are entirely due to changes to medical treatment and in human behavior, which limit transmission and numbers of new infections initiated by large inocula — a larger dose of virus appears to be worse — rather than changes in the virus itself,” he said.

That makes far more sense to me.

Great article, thanks.

[MichaelB]

[mod hat on]
We rather not get into protests and related topics. That’s a form of political speech, discouraged by our community rules.
[mod hat off]

[Brat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by audreyh1 I definitely believe that it’s the size of the dose of exposure that can make a huge difference in how sick an individual gets. And a lot of things we are doing reduce the exposure. That’s certainly how I’m dealing with it - if I’m exposed, I want a small dose, so I take precautions.

Virologists are sequencing this virus and can actually trace its movements through the population, that is how they could tell that the NYC virus came from Europe while the west coast version came from Asia. At its core, the virus has not mutated enough to mitigate its lethality.

I agree that exposure dose is likely a major factor in the seriousness of the illness, as are age and co-morbidities. Physicians are developing experience, treatments are more effective. With many of us wearing a face mask and maintaining our distance the death rate should improve.

Now, if we could only get a handle on infections in nursing homes. I read that in Canada they called in the military to help in nursing homes and were appalled at the conditions they found.

[audreyh1]

Managing infections at institutions, including workplaces, is going to be key in terms of living with this virus while lessening the worst consequences for local communities. It makes sense to me that soon the bulk of the effort focuses on these.

Otherwise, for me personally I am becoming cautiously optimistic that perhaps it will get to a point where mask wearing in public limits exposure enough to mean significantly less lethal consequences. I don’t intend to participate in dine-in restaurants or large group gatherings, but I might be willing to fly again if mask wearing is required.

[badatmath]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Midpack Cases is the poorest indicator in some cases, more testing = more cases. Hospitalizations and deaths are better, per capita if you’re making comparisons to other states/countries.

I should have been more precise, we just hit a record number of hospitalizations. I don't really follow it very closely but it is impossible to miss it is still a significant issue in some places even as others subside.

You did note my user name "badatmath" right,

It is really very tiresome we were locked down "early" to some extent and after all this it is NOW looking a bit worse. Too soon to say really.

[CardsFan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by badatmath I should have been more precise, we just hit a record number of hospitalizations. I don't really follow it very closely but it is impossible to miss it is still a significant issue in some places even as others subside. You did note my user name "badatmath" right, It is really very tiresome we were locked down "early" to some extent and after all this it is NOW looking a bit worse. Too soon to say really.

Re: Bold above.

Are you saying we have a record number currently hospitalized? If so, please cite, I have not seen that.

Or, are you saying the total number is a record? Because that will happen every day even one person is hospitalized.

[copyright1997reloaded]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigNick You can't have a survival instinct unless you are an animal. A virus is just a very dumb piece of DNA or RNA. There is no teleology, only emergent "behaviour" (which is our attempt to impose meaning on a huge statistical series of events). It's true that, on average, variants of viruses that don't kill their hosts will spread more than those that do, but the higher the R number and the longer the incubation period (on both of which points SARS-CoV-2 seems to score quite substantially), the advantage for the non-killer version will be reduced.

Thank you for posting this. I guess they don't cover the "virus survival instinct" part of question until near the end of college or grad school part of epidemiology. Then again, I do tell my beginning computer science students that "some of the things that the book and for that matter what I tell you in this course are not true". That gets their attention. [Then I explain that things are done this way to 'simplify']

[SecondCor521]

Quote:

Originally Posted by audreyh1 I don’t intend to participate in dine-in restaurants or large group gatherings, but I might be willing to fly again if mask wearing is required.

Mask wearing was required by passengers on American Airlines when I flew them domestically a few weeks ago; they provided masks at the gate if you didn't have one. I'm not sure of other airlines' policies, but I think they are similar.

[robnplunder]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whisper66 This data suggests a worldwide downward trend in deaths. Maybe you have other data to compare to? (Ref: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/)

The C19 deaths have been grossly underreported by Latin American countries (the current epicenter). When the epicenter was EU & New York/Jersey, I don't think the underreporting was this bad. This is my guess based on reports from Mexico, Ecuador, Brazil, .... For example, a few weeks ago, an Ecuador official stated that there could be 6000 deaths in their hardest-hit city. On that day, the officially reported accumulated death for Ecuador was in one hundred (now it's 3000+). I've seen similar statements from an Mexican official, too. The underreporting is said to be in the order of magnitude.

[Gearhead Jim]

Quote:

Originally Posted by audreyh1 If a lot of demonstrators are wearing masks, and masks are effective, it may not.

Speaking of masks, I've seen a couple of posters (cartoons) saying that if two people are nearby, and one is infected but both are wearing masks, the chance of the other person becoming infected is only 1.5%.

That seems incredibly good. If they were referring to N95 masks, I could understand it. With simple surgical masks or the home made "Frito Bandito" mask that most folks are wearing, hard to believe.

Does anyone know?