Coronavirus - worldwide spread and control

Status
Not open for further replies.
An Outbreak of Human Coronavirus OC43 and ...
Patrick et al 2006

from the abstract, full article available
Ninety-five of 142 residents (67%) and 53 of 160 staff members (33%) experienced symptoms of respiratory infection. Symptomatic residents experienced cough (66%), fever (21%) and pneumonia (12%). Eight residents died, six with pneumonia. No staff members developed pneumonia.

Findings on reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction assays for SARS-CoV at a national reference laboratory were suspected to represent false positives, but this was confounded by concurrent identification of antibody to N protein on serology. Subsequent testing by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction confirmed HCoV-OC43 infection. Convalescent serology ruled out SARS. Notably, sera demonstrated cross-reactivity against nucleocapsid peptide sequences common to HCoV-OC43 and SARS-CoV.

Conclusions
These findings underscore the virulence of human CoV-OC43 in elderly populations and confirm that cross-reactivity to antibody against nucleocapsid proteins from these viruses must be considered when interpreting serological tests for SARS-CoV.
Click to expand...
 
Investigating the impact of influenza on excess mortalitiy on all ages In Itlay during recent seasons ...
Rosano et al 2019

from the abstract, full article available
Objectives
Click to expand...
In recent years, Italy has been registering peaks in death rates, particularly among the elderly during the winter season. Influenza epidemics have been indicated as one of the potential determinants of such an excess. The objective of our study was to estimate the influenza-attributable contribution to excess mortality during the influenza seasons from 2013/14 to 2016/17 in Italy.


Results
Click to expand...
We estimated excess deaths of 7,027, 20,259, 15,801 and 24,981 attributable to influenza epidemics in the 2013/14, 2014/15, 2015/16 and 2016/17, respectively, using the Goldstein index.

The average annual mortality excess rate per 100,000 ranged from 11.6 to 41.2 with most of the influenza-associated deaths per year registered among the elderly.

However children less than 5 years old also reported a relevant influenza attributable excess death rate in the 2014/15 and 2016/17 seasons (1.05/100,000 and 1.54/100,000 respectively).


Conclusions
Click to expand...
Over 68,000 deaths were attributable to influenza epidemics in the study period.

The observed excess of deaths is not completely unexpected, given the high number of fragile very old subjects living in Italy. In conclusion, the unpredictability of the influenza virus continues to present a major challenge to health professionals and policy makers. Nonetheless, vaccination remains the most effective means for reducing the burden of influenza, and efforts to increase vaccine coverage and the introduction of new vaccine strategies (such as vaccinating healthy children) should be considered to reduce the influenza attributable excess mortality experienced in Italy and in Europe in the last seasons.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
FMMM1 said:
Unbelievable i.e. providing equipment to save lives in an epidemic is not something the government or parliament are “responsible for”.

@Jonathan Edwards the Government seems to be keen to stay out of the operation side i.e. health care delivery.
Click to expand...

And so it seems is Public Health England or whatever they are called.

This really does look to be the root of the problem. Elsewhere in Guardian coverage it says that the NHS are saying Ministers should be organising the testing through private outsourcing and Ministers are saying PHE should be organising it.
The NHS has been underfunded by £60B a year for several years. Now we have £330B made avaialable to bail out businesses but nothing for the NHS other than a 'waiving' of a tiny amount.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/

Here are the latest numbers of new cases and deaths in Sweden

621 - 69 ........... yesterday
512 - 59
407 - 34
328 - 36
253 - 05
378
229 - 28

first case might have been at begin of march
first death might have been at march 11th, if I got it rightly

and then they say, that this may reflect only the spread of the virus under the population and the dying, and not be a relevant exceed mortality.
 
Esther12 said:
An article on a pre-print that I've not read, but have seen discussed around that place. It looked at the different economic outcomes of different cities responses to the 1918 flu.



https://amp.wbur.org/bostonomix/202...nomic-impact-covid-19-coronavirus-spanish-flu
Click to expand...

It’s a good article. I think this is a key point:

But Verner said his research casts doubt on the idea that cities must choose between opening up the economy and social distancing policies because "we're not going to have a normal economy during the pandemic."

"Smart public health interventions not only are going to reduce the number of people who get sick and reduce mortality from the coronavirus, they're also the key to restoring healthy functioning of the economy — because the economy isn't going to go back to normal until we've defeated the disease," Verner said.
Click to expand...
 
Jonathan Edwards said:
And so it seems is Public Health England or whatever they are called.

This really does look to be the root of the problem. Elsewhere in Guardian coverage it says that the NHS are saying Ministers should be organising the testing through private outsourcing and Ministers are saying PHE should be organising it. Both sides have become deeply embedded in the skill of avoiding doing things and passing the buck.

The NHS has been underfunded by £60B a year for several years. Now we have £330B made avaialable to bail out businesses but nothing for the NHS other than a super generous 'waiving' of a tiny amount.

One might think that they might wake up to the fact that the maximum economic damage now being caused is a direct reaping of austerity policy but I doubt it.
Click to expand...

They’re still at it.





And then..

 
Invisible Woman said:
My vote would be healthcare workers should have priority however -

A relative who has serious ongoing health problems was rushed to hospital. The specialist ward this person needs to go on has some very ill people on it, some of whom may well recover, some won't, regardless of corona virus. Before going to the ward my relative was held in isolation pending a covid test. I think this is valid use of the test.

However, this person is very sick, the condition is affecting cognitive function, ability to give informed consent etc. This person may not have long left & will not be allowed any visitors, not even a partner of 30 or so years and it also means the partner cannot ask the staff questions face to face and staff aren't talking to them in the phone. If the partner could be tested as clear or as having had it and allowed access it would make the situation much more bearable.

So my vote would be testing primarily for healthcare workers, the patients coming into hospital to assess risk of infecting other patients and where patients are extremely sick & possibly dying a loved one tested and cleared to visit - even if that is just one person.

Mind you there's also the argument for testing healthcare workers families too...
Click to expand...

Check out Atul Gawande's comments (they are referenced on this site) in one Asian country they have documented a large number of cases where multiple medical staff were unknowingly exposed to people with coronavirus and not been infected i.e. provided they wore a surgical mask and gloves (scrubs?). So provided a surgical mask and gloves are available then presumably the risk is reduced significantly --- assuming you have "surgical mask and gloves" of course.

Atul talks about not needing the "full Wuhan".

Search here for "Atul" and you should be able to find a link to the New York Times article.

Trying to be helpful - good luck.
 
Last edited:
Jonathan Edwards said:
And so it seems is Public Health England or whatever they are called.

This really does look to be the root of the problem. Elsewhere in Guardian coverage it says that the NHS are saying Ministers should be organising the testing through private outsourcing and Ministers are saying PHE should be organising it. Both sides have become deeply embedded in the skill of avoiding doing things and passing the buck.

The NHS has been underfunded by £60B a year for several years. Now we have £330B made avaialable to bail out businesses but nothing for the NHS other than a super generous 'waiving' of a tiny amount.

One might think that they might wake up to the fact that the maximum economic damage now being caused is a direct reaping of austerity policy but I doubt it.
Click to expand...

If the Government creates a system (e.g. devolving power to Public Health England - PHE) and the coronavirus pandemic shows that it doesn't work, then the Government should review and revise the system. In the meantime they should direct PHE/NHS or whoever else to do ---.

Yes the real problem is that they haven't been funding the health service, while being creative with the numbers to make it appear that they have, and now that policy has rebounded on them & more importantly us!

Yes, I see what you mean "£13.4 billion debt write-off" for NHS versus £330B to bail out businesses, shows where your priorities are!
 


“But today he refused to guarantee it will happen, saying it is only a "plan" and a "goal".

And he refused to say he will resign if there aren't 100,000 a tests by May. He told LBC radio: "It's much more than about that. It's about getting the country out of this situation we're in."

Mr Hancock also clarified his 100,000 target might include both swab tests - which show if you currently have the virus - and antibody tests which show if you might be immune.

That means it can't be compared to the previous target of 25,000 tests a day - which only included swab tests.”

At the moment I’m more concerned about the fact we haven’t even reached 10,000 let alone 25,000. “More than three weeks ago NHS England announced it would scale up testing capacity to 10,000 a day, but the number of people tested has struggled to pass 8,000 a day.” - Telegraph.
 
Last edited:
It reminded me of the thermometer boards that used to sit outside practically all churches, denoting how much of the goal had been achieved towards the new roof fund.

The way to attract new interest, and hopefully new funds (from the small section of the community that had already given), was to increase the goal amount.

That after a few decades always fell down in a storm, on one occasion injuring a man of the cloth (sorry, while ago, can't remember if he was a minster, a reverend, a vicar etc.).

Interesting way to run a testing program, but if in doubt go with the way we know doesn't work, as it's the way it's always been done in the UK.
 
FMMM1 said:
Check out Atul Gawande's comments (they are referenced on this site) in one Asian country they have documented a large number of cases where multiple medical staff were unknowingly exposed to people with coronavirus and not been infected i.e. provided they wore a surgical mask and gloves (scrubs?). So provided a surgical mask and gloves are available then presumably the risk is reduced significantly --- assuming you have "surgical mask and gloves" of course.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I appreciate where you're coming from. However, many hospitals are still full of sick people who do not have coronavirus. They may well make a full or very good recovery, but at this point in time they are very vulnerable to complications or possibly death if they contract covid 19.

Babies are still being born, sadly some of them born with health conditions, people are still in cardiac, oncology and all sorts of other wards. Keeping those wards covid free is vital. This is where I feel healthcare staff should be tested.

The ones treating covid patients, sure they should have whatever equipment they need to keep themselves and their patients safe. They should have whatever masks etc are needed.

Staff on an oncology ward or neonatal staff or whatever may not need the all the protective gear, freeing it for frontline emergency staff or those treating covd patients if they know their patients are clear coming into the ward. From my relative's experience they are testing patients before allowing them to be transferred to the specialist ward.

Just like the rest of us though, an neonatal or oncology nurse or doctor could be exposed via a child or partner etc. So if they can be tested as clear, work can continue safely on specialist non covid wards.
 
Last edited:
lunarainbows said:
“But today he refused to guarantee it will happen, saying it is only a "plan" and a "goal".
Click to expand...
Ah, but they could just follow the IAPT strategy and blatantly lie about it. Make it a target. Say you "met" the target. Who's going to contradict you? Just gag them. Move the goalposts. Once it's allowed once, especially for such a big project as IAPT, it quickly becomes habitual, even necessary, to protect the institutions (well, the reputation of their leadership but whatever). Very likely already is.

Which is kinda relevant with Horton and his "duty of candor" comment. What if those people actually believed what they are saying? They can claim to be candid, because it may be what they believe. And we know that "may be" and "could be" is now a perfectly acceptable evidence-based standard, thanks in part to Horton himself. They may even believe themselves asserting their candor while they're lying about their lack of candor. It's not a lie if you believe it, after all. Just as Horton dispelled with all his duties, on candor and many more, on PACE because he believes in this stuff and allowed blatant lies to sell the model. Ideology always comes with friends, once you let it in the door they all come crashing in. Some of them are a little less wishy-washy about their intentions.

The reign of error of the behaviorists is the monster Horton helped create, or facilitated along the way.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Costello says it as it is, again;

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...herd-immunity-community-surveillance-covid-19

It is not too late but the UK government advisors appear to be deaf to the advice of someone highly qualified who has common sense..

He seems to confirm that the government moved to phase 2 and suppression without contact tracing because right from the start they realised they did not have the testing capability to make contact tracing work.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom