2019 Novel Coronavirus Covid-19 Discussion

Forums › Health and fitness › 2019 Novel Coronavirus Covid-19 Discussion

1 | ... | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | ... | 2429

11294 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2432844 4-Mar-2020 22:42

frednz: Thanks for the comments you posted on this matter, but if anyone can tell me where thousands of people can buy face masks this would be appreciated. If the answer is that you simply can't buy one, then I think it's a reasonable question to ask what "authorities" are doing about this situation.

Oh gawd, I think I really shouldn't have started reading this thread... given that a standard face mask does exactly nothing to protect you from nCov 19 and an N95 might help a bit but you need training to fit it properly and it's so damn uncomfortable to wear that most people will either remove it or bypass its protection, combined with the fact that your chances of catching it in NZ are close to zero, I think the authorities are doing more than enough, which is telling people to practice good hygiene.

neb

11294 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2432845 4-Mar-2020 22:46

Scott3:
Note that the NZ & USA authorities do not recommend the general public wear masks, unless they are showing symptoms.

Yup, because the point of a mask is to protect the public from you, not you from the public.

The authorities are kinda stuck between a rock and a hard place, by not handing out free masks they're upsetting the people who don't understand nCov 19, and if they did hand out free masks they'd be upsetting the people who do understand nCov 19. The advice they are giving is pretty good, wash your hands properly, use soap, be careful about touching stuff and then touching your eyes/mouth/food, etc.

Scott3

4177 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2990

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2432846 4-Mar-2020 22:47

Anybody else watch one news tonight?

The quoted a 1% Covid-19 mortality rate without citing a source. And went on to say that the actual rate is likely much lower due to the large number of cases without symptoms. This lead to a comparison with Spanish flu (cira 2% mortality), saying that covid-19 is not as bad.

Seemed directly at odds with the WHO's recent announcement of a 3.4% mortality rate...

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/03/who-says-coronavirus-death-rate-is-3point4percent-globally-higher-than-previously-thought.html

neb

11294 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2432849 4-Mar-2020 22:53

Scott3:
Seemed directly at odds with the WHO's recent announcement of a 3.4% mortality rate...

Since it's a moving target and affects different demographics in very different ways, it's (a) hard to produce a single figure and (b) any single figure produced, by whatever means, is meaningless because it's averaged across wildly different groups. In particular your age, presence of prexisting conditions, and access to appropriate care all have a huge effect one whether you'll survive or not.

That's one thing that's going to be a big disruptive factor if it's not contained, the current mortality rates are based on access to decent medical care. If there's a massive surge somewhere that completely overwhelms the medical system then expect mortality rates to increase. China seems to have gotten on top of it, now places like Italy and Iran are the problem areas.

neb

11294 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2432850 4-Mar-2020 22:55

alexx:
Coronavirus: Chinese app WeChat censored virus content since 1 Jan

I can understand that, there's so much bollocks going round that I can see why they'd want to cut down on some of it. Did you know that it was a bioweapon engineered in China that escaped^H^H^H^Hthat was deliberately released so China could sell the west the vaccine it's secretly been hoarding?

enfield

203 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 10

#2432861 4-Mar-2020 23:28

https://www.trademe.co.nz/health-beauty/other/listing-2560535884.htm?rsqid=b83ea030503749edb15c9e7072fa9c68-002

$70 for a used Dettol hand sanitizer

New World

Shop on-line at New World now for your groceries (affiliate link).

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2432868 5-Mar-2020 00:02

Scott3:

Anybody else watch one news tonight?

The quoted a 1% Covid-19 mortality rate without citing a source. And went on to say that the actual rate is likely much lower due to the large number of cases without symptoms. This lead to a comparison with Spanish flu (cira 2% mortality), saying that covid-19 is not as bad.

Seemed directly at odds with the WHO's recent announcement of a 3.4% mortality rate...

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/03/who-says-coronavirus-death-rate-is-3point4percent-globally-higher-than-previously-thought.html

Yes - I saw that on TV1 news too. The guy was from Johns Hopkins. It may have been recorded days ago. Contact tracing is not showing that there are large numbers of asymptomatic cases according to WHO - so that's either good news (less chance of asymptomatic super-spreaders) or bad news (worse prognosis if you do get it).

There is a paper that's been published in China suggesting that amongst identified mutations in the RNA, there are two strains that seem to behave differently. The first strain (S variant) has a closer genome to bat coronaviruses, they suggest less contagious but less virulent / milder. The second strain (L variant) evolved from the S strain and is both more contagious and more virulent. In cases in China, Wuhan showed 95% prevalence of the L strain, but cases elsewhere in China show 30% are the (earlier) S strain. Hypothesis that containment was more effective for the L strain / people with the S strain were less likely to be unwell and detected - so they travelled outside Wuhan/Hubei carrying more of the less contagious and less severe strain, hence the apparently lower death rate outside Hubei - as well as remarkable level of epidemic containment.

I'm sceptical about all of that - an overwhelmed health system in Wuhan is a likely reason for the higher case fatality rate. It's also not how things usually work - a zoonotic infectious disease path is usually for it initially to be extremely virulent but very hard to transmit person to person, then if the disease becomes established in the new host it mutates to become more contagious - while becoming less virulent as that helps people to be mobile and spread the disease in the community. So if the genome suggests that the less virulent strain was or was closer to the original virus - then that's a very odd finding. I'm a bit sceptical that the hypothesis implies that China have done a wonderful job. On the other hand if they're right, then it's even more reason for other countries to try and achieve what China claim to have done with containment. They still have 70% of the more contagious and virulent strain outside Wuhan - it's not as if suddenly a "mild form" has taken over.

mattwnz

20523 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4798

#2432870 5-Mar-2020 00:14

Scott3:

Anybody else watch one news tonight?

The quoted a 1% Covid-19 mortality rate without citing a source. And went on to say that the actual rate is likely much lower due to the large number of cases without symptoms. This lead to a comparison with Spanish flu (cira 2% mortality), saying that covid-19 is not as bad.

It is nearly as bad as the news reports saying normal flu also kills 1% eg 1 in 100, which is fake news. Normal flue kills 1 in 1000, or 0.1%. This kills a multitude more, but depends on the country and their health system.

I see Chinese scientists have also just detected two different strains, one being more deadly than the other. Maybe that could explain why some people appear to test positive twice?

gzt

18755 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7883

Lifetime subscriber

#2432871 5-Mar-2020 00:15

I saw some figures from China saying zero deaths of positive tests under 5 years old or something like that age. That's a saving grace if correct so far. Interested to know exactly what that age break was and if the same has held true for Italy and Iran and other countries.

neb

11294 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2432873 5-Mar-2020 00:24

gzt: I saw some figures from China saying zero deaths of positive tests under 5 years old or something like that age. That's a saving grace if correct so far. Interested to know exactly what that age break was and if the same has held true for Italy and Iran and other countries.

The WHO have published tables (somewhere) breaking it down by age group and pre-existing conditions. Can't remember where at the moment, but it's fractional percentages up to 20s or 30s, and low for currently-healthy people. Conversely, it's double digits for the elderly. I don't think they broke it down by country, this was overall.

Thus see my earlier comment about how a figure like 1% or 3% is pretty much meaningless.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2432875 5-Mar-2020 00:32

gzt: I saw some figures from China saying zero deaths of positive tests under 5 years old or something like that age. That's a saving grace. Interested to know exactly what that age break was and if the same has held true for Italy and Iran and other countries.

Yes - I believe so - last time I looked at some case data there were no deaths under age 10, CFR reported to be 0.2% from age 10 to 40, then increasing. As well as reducing case fatality rate with reducing age, there are fewer cases. In my opinion, it's crucial to find out why. There's a hypothesis that there's cross-immunity from exposure to childhood bugs and sniffles - which would include coronaviruses causing the "common cold" and possibly low rates in the age group where parents have young children.

And a warning there too from the spanish flu pandemic - it started like that too - (although as well as old people -it also killed a lot of very young people as is still the case with flu), but then a second wave came, with 50% of deaths aged between 20 and 40 YO. Some interesting hypothesis on why that could have been - but nothing proven as to why.

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2432877 5-Mar-2020 00:40

Just a point about the low (0.2%) CFR for people aged 10-40YO. Don't think that this means it's only "twice as bad as the flu" for that age group. The 0.1% rate being bandied around for flu is over all age groups, it's very unusual for anybody aged 10-40 to die from the flu.

Scott3

4177 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2990

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2432878 5-Mar-2020 01:14

Scott3:
Anybody else watch one news tonight?

The quoted a 1% Covid-19 mortality rate without citing a source. And went on to say that the actual rate is likely much lower due to the large number of cases without symptoms. This lead to a comparison with Spanish flu (cira 2% mortality), saying that covid-19 is not as bad.

Seemed directly at odds with the WHO's recent announcement of a 3.4% mortality rate...

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/03/who-says-coronavirus-death-rate-is-3point4percent-globally-higher-than-previously-thought.html

Can't edit this any more. Just realised the 3.4% isn't case fatality. As the time basis hasn't been corrected for.

kingdragonfly

12007 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12926

Subscriber

#2432885 5-Mar-2020 07:12

Regarding travel insurance for businesses

I heard that Wellington Hospital's insurance company has just declared Covid-19 as an international epidemic

Their insurer pulled travel insurance coverage to a bunch of countries, including Australia.

So business trips there were cancelled, due to lack of insurance.

heavenlywild

5091 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 901

Trusted

#2432887 5-Mar-2020 07:25

Ok third case confirmed. Not from the family from the North Shore. No further details at this stage.

1 | ... | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | ... | 2429