Coronavirus outbreak

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
In the UK, a bad flu season kills around 300 people with viral pneumonia. C-19 so far has killed over 1200 (as of 28th March). This number is doubling every 3 days. The excess mortality data that the CDC uses to estimate flu deaths is controversial within epidemiological circles because less than 5% of the deaths it counts can be directly attributed to flu. In other words, it overestimates the impact of flu. Italy has already seen more deaths than even the excess mortality figures - and the epidemic there still shows little signs of stopping! How much more evidence do you need?
I think the ''flu like symtons'' are taken out of context with the whole ''it's just a flu'' thing. surely it is not Flu is known, just as medication for it, cv-19 is a corona virus so unknown in many many respects.
 

SpokeyDokey

68, & my GP says I will officially be old at 70!
Moderator
Sorry if already posted - trying to read every post in this fast moving thread is tricky!

Sweden taking a very different approach by all accounts:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-52076293
 

SpokeyDokey

68, & my GP says I will officially be old at 70!
Moderator
If you are correct then I accept your point. Having not moved from my home for over a week then Google as been my point of reference and the figures that come up for flu are horrendous, and whilst I know covid 19 isn't the flu but is the same as sars mers bird flu etc I had difficulty comprehending why so many deaths per year from flu could be accepted without locking the world down (cdc suggest 290000 minimum) when surely the same sort of social distancing rules would lead. To many fewer deaths from flu.
There's no need to lockdown for flu as there is a vaccination. If you have been on Google you will surely know there isn't a vaccine for covid 19.
 

PK99

Legendary Member
Location
SW19
Interesting article here>

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health-fitness/body/reduce-covid-19-viral-load/

Viral load. I first heard about it, as you may have done too, via social media. A letter, supposedly from an ICU (intensive care unit) doctor, popped up on Instagram on Tuesday morning, March 24th, warning that this was one reason it why, when it comes to the coronavirus, it is so important to avoid groups of people, even if you are young and healthy.

“Remember this: VIRAL LOAD. There will be a lot about this, why is it important?” the letter stated. “With this virus, the amount of virus in your blood at first infection directly relates to the severity of the illness you will suffer.” It went on to explain how being in a group, “say in a pub or religious building or entertainment venue with 200 people and a large number don’t have symptoms, but are shedding, you are breathing in lots of droplets per minute and absorbing a high dose of the virus.”

##


Professor Wendy Barclay, Head of Department of Infectious Disease, at Imperial College London and Action Medical Research Chair Virology, an expert in the flu virus, who is now researching the coronavirus, says when it comes to coronavirus viral load is indeed important in how the infection will play out.
“Viral load is simply a term for how much virus a person has got,” says Professor Barclay. “In general with respiratory viruses, whether you get severely ill or only get a mild cold – can sometimes be determined by how much virus actually got into your body and started the infection off. Think about the analogy of two armies at battle. The outcome of the infection is your own immune system, whose army is of a fixed size and doesn’t change, versus the virus, whose army gets bigger and bigger as it replicates, but also starts off at different sizes. “
With flu, I quite often describe it like this: if you sit next to somebody and they cough right in your face, you’ll probably get a huge amount of virus, but if there is someone on the other side of the bus that breathes, by the time the virus is diluted in all the other air you don’t get very much. And the battle between the virus and your own immune system is weighed comparatively depending on the size of the army at the start.”

This is why doctors are very badly affected. “The procedures doctors are doing mean they are up close to the face taking a swab, or doing an intubation (a procedure performed when you can’t breathe on your own), and despite the fact that we hope that they are wearing protective equipment, they may be exposed to more virus in the air than the average person would normally be.”




 
Interesting article here>

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health-fitness/body/reduce-covid-19-viral-load/

Viral load. I first heard about it, as you may have done too, via social media. A letter, supposedly from an ICU (intensive care unit) doctor, popped up on Instagram on Tuesday morning, March 24th, warning that this was one reason it why, when it comes to the coronavirus, it is so important to avoid groups of people, even if you are young and healthy.

“Remember this: VIRAL LOAD. There will be a lot about this, why is it important?” the letter stated. “With this virus, the amount of virus in your blood at first infection directly relates to the severity of the illness you will suffer.” It went on to explain how being in a group, “say in a pub or religious building or entertainment venue with 200 people and a large number don’t have symptoms, but are shedding, you are breathing in lots of droplets per minute and absorbing a high dose of the virus.”

##


Professor Wendy Barclay, Head of Department of Infectious Disease, at Imperial College London and Action Medical Research Chair Virology, an expert in the flu virus, who is now researching the coronavirus, says when it comes to coronavirus viral load is indeed important in how the infection will play out.
“Viral load is simply a term for how much virus a person has got,” says Professor Barclay. “In general with respiratory viruses, whether you get severely ill or only get a mild cold – can sometimes be determined by how much virus actually got into your body and started the infection off. Think about the analogy of two armies at battle. The outcome of the infection is your own immune system, whose army is of a fixed size and doesn’t change, versus the virus, whose army gets bigger and bigger as it replicates, but also starts off at different sizes. “
With flu, I quite often describe it like this: if you sit next to somebody and they cough right in your face, you’ll probably get a huge amount of virus, but if there is someone on the other side of the bus that breathes, by the time the virus is diluted in all the other air you don’t get very much. And the battle between the virus and your own immune system is weighed comparatively depending on the size of the army at the start.”

This is why doctors are very badly affected. “The procedures doctors are doing mean they are up close to the face taking a swab, or doing an intubation (a procedure performed when you can’t breathe on your own), and despite the fact that we hope that they are wearing protective equipment, they may be exposed to more virus in the air than the average person would normally be.”

Makes sense - I have been thinking why front line staff seem to get it bad - the above explains it perfectly.

Another thing I have read a lot of - is that patients make a recovery - then it comes back with a vengeance - very often requiring hospital treatment.
 
Last edited:

roubaixtuesday

self serving virtue signaller

In common with most such, two tactics are used to argue for low impact:

1) Current mortality is used - ignoring the fact that the projected final death rate is why action is being taken, not the body count today.

2) The fact that death rates as only as low as they are because of the measures taken is ignored.

There is a genuine debate to be had as to the cost/ benefit of suppressing COVID is. That this article, and all other similar ones I've seen, uses sleight of hand to skew that debate, suggests that we're doing the right thing at the moment.

As we learn more about the disease and how to tackle it, we'll see.
 
In common with most such, two tactics are used to argue for low impact:

1) Current mortality is used - ignoring the fact that the projected final death rate is why action is being taken, not the body count today.

2) The fact that death rates as only as low as they are because of the measures taken is ignored.

There is a genuine debate to be had as to the cost/ benefit of suppressing COVID is. That this article, and all other similar ones I've seen, uses sleight of hand to skew that debate, suggests that we're doing the right thing at the moment.

As we learn more about the disease and how to tackle it, we'll see.

I was sure I ready very early - when it was still only in china - That WHO had done a very small study in Wuhan and the findings were that there wasn't any evidence to suggest that there were large numbers of undiagnosed cases - in general if you got it - you knew about it.
 
Top Bottom