All things Chinese CoronaVirus

[MDlaxfan76]

We aren’t selfish. And we were told it’s so transmittable that everyone probably has it. And there’s nothing to do about it anyway.

Wrong. We were told it was more transmittable than the flu, but not to the point where everyone has it. Even the best numbers for NYC have fewer than a quarter of the population infected. Most of the rest of the country - a few percent to around 5 percent.

So Assume you have it, self quarantine and join the 99.95% that end up being fine.

Absolutely a dangerous thing to do. And the death rate alone is likely to end up between a half percent and one percent. Plus a lot more complications healthwise than the flu.

You have a better chance of dying in a car accident than you do of covid.

This is your most laughable claim. Chance of dying IF you get in a car accident are higher, but the chance of getting in an accident makes that one way lower in terms of death rate. (A 1% car accident death rate for the American population would mean around 3.2 million people per year...

These aren’t claims.

My post was referring to the article about lack of test subjects. This is what the public has been told by the talking heads on tv for the past 2+ mos and what we’re seeing in practice locally.

My point is - we take risks in everything we do. We will ultimately accept the unlikely risk of catching covid and dying like we do for many things in life. You have a likely chance of getting into a car accident and dying in your everyday travels as you do catching covid and dying. It can surely happen, but probably won’t, and you can always take plenty of precautions to improve your personal odds.

"lack of test subjects"???

I must have missed that reference and topic.

do you mean that in some areas they have tests ready and waiting for all residents of that area?

or is this in reference to they have enough tests for all those presenting with symptoms...and expanded to all medical workers and first responders? or expanded further?

That's certainly not been the case until recently in any area with hot spots. Nope, even with symptoms it's been difficult to get a test scheduled.

That's getting better, but certainly not remotely the kind of broadly available testing necessary to assure an employer that everyone they're letting in their door has been tested and is virus-free. Same for retailers or other service providers, much less restaurants.

re car deaths, there are less than 6 million accidents per year reported. Less than 40K deaths annually. Get in an accident and you have a chance of dying about 1.7%. But chance of an accident? Tiny. Risk of contracting Covid? Extremely high without distancing etc or vaccine.

Which is why 90k deaths in less than 3 months versus less than 40k deaths full year.
And that's with many of us not metaphorically 'getting in the car' these past 3 months.
Otherwise, that death toll would be much higher still.

[CU88]

o d still doesn’t have an adequate national testing strategy.

We did 2 million tests last week, scaling up exponentially at this stage.

Who got those tests?
What test did they get?
Who made and administered those tests?
How did they report the test and to whom?
How many of those people got multiple tests?
Did they get their results?

[RedFromMI]

Airplanes don’t make you sick. Really.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... ck-really/

By Joseph Allen
May 18, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. EDT

Joseph Allen is assistant professor of exposure assessment science at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and co-author of the book “Healthy Buildings.”

You don’t get sick on airplanes any more than anywhere else. Really, you don’t.

If you think this is preposterous or even dangerous to suggest during a pandemic, consider this fact: The ventilation system requirements for airplanes meet the levels recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for use with covid-19 patients in airborne infection isolation rooms.

Before we go any further, let’s make one thing clear: Airplanes are certainly vectors of disease, efficiently transporting infectious people around countries and the globe. This is obviously critical in terms of outbreak control for covid-19. But the fact that airplanes help spread disease across geographies does not mean that you are necessarily at risk during flight. There are fairly simple things you can do, if you do need to travel, to reduce the odds of getting sick.

Billions of people travel by plane every year, yet there have only been a handful of documented disease outbreaks attributable to airplanes in the past 40 years. If planes made you sick, we would expect to see millions of people sick every year attributable to flights. We haven’t seen it because it’s just not happening.

Consider one study that examined a passenger with tuberculosis on an airplane. It found that the median risk of infection to the other 169 passengers on the airplane was between 1 in 10,000 to 1 in a million. Wearing a mask, as some airlines now require, reduced the incidence of infection another 10-fold.

There’s a reason the risks are low. The required aircraft systems do a really good job of controlling airborne bacteria and viruses.

To get technical, airplanes deliver 10 to 12 air changes per hour. In a hospital isolation room, the minimum target is six air changes per hour for existing facilities and 12 air changes per hour for new. Airplanes also use the same air filter — a HEPA filter — recommended by the CDC for isolation rooms with recirculated air. Such filters capture 99.97 percent of airborne particles.

What’s more, airplanes are essentially designed to isolate airflow. Even if someone coughs on your flight without a mask, it is likely those virus particles will travel one or two rows, as evidence from the few outbreaks attributed to the airplane cabin shows.

Still, you might say, this only accounts for airborne transmission of covid-19. To guard against transmission via large droplets and contaminated surfaces, we do need to take some additional steps. Wearing a mask on planes should be mandated, and wiping down tables and arm rests with a disinfectant provides an additional layer of defense.

By this point, you may be thinking, “But I know I get sick when I travel. This article goes against everything I have experienced firsthand.” The reality is that you are more at risk of getting sick when traveling, but it’s not the airplane that’s making you sick.

Every time you fly, you may also take a cab, bus or subway; stand in long lines in the airport; eat unhealthy foods; sit for extended durations; spend time in spaces with hundreds or thousands of other travelers; stay at a hotel or friend’s home; arrive in a different climate and change time zones, disrupting your sleep. All of these factors are known to affect your immune system.

Let me distill some of the recommendations from that report to those that are most applicable now and add a few new ones based on what we now know about covid-19.

For starters, airports should mandate mask wearing; increase ventilation rates; make bathrooms touchless; consider deploying upper-room germicidal UV fixtures in areas with high-occupant density; institute temperature screening; deploy hand-sanitizer stations; and, once passengers arrive at their gates, require that they stay in their designated area except for bathroom usage.

Airlines should ensure gate-based ventilation is operating during boarding and disembarkation; carefully choreograph the loading of airplanes; mandate mask use; and provide meals and bottled water during boarding and discontinue in-flight meal and drink service.

Individuals have an important role to play, too. First, stay home and do not travel if sick. Comply with rules for mask wearing; wash hands before and after each step at the airport; keep the personal overhead ventilation on and pointed down; and maintain physical distancing to the extent possible.

If the necessary precautions are taken, and people do their part and behave according to rules, there is a path back to air travel. But we should all consider this a privilege — one that can be revoked quickly if conditions change or if crowds do not act appropriately.

[6ftstick]

97727158_1352557478265403_4580275754360635392_n.jpg (46.66 KiB) Viewed 896 times

[njbill]

Early data show Moderna Covid-19 vaccine generates immune response

https://www.statnews.com/2020/05/18/ear ... -response/

That would be great news. If it really is ready to go by January, do you think they will call it the Biden vaccine?

[Typical Lax Dad]

97727158_1352557478265403_4580275754360635392_n.jpg

Yep. This is just as bad as the Holocaust. You are absolutely right.

[6ftstick]

97727158_1352557478265403_4580275754360635392_n.jpg

Yep. This is just as bad as the Holocaust.

Only 5 million 900 thousand to go.

[Typical Lax Dad]

97727158_1352557478265403_4580275754360635392_n.jpg

Yep. This is just as bad as the Holocaust.

Only 5 million 900 thousand to go.

Load up the train. The heat should kill it, right?

[cradleandshoot]

97727158_1352557478265403_4580275754360635392_n.jpg

Just don't get into the showers... What a post Six. The FLP folks here will be freaking the heck out over that one. I am guessing that now you will be guilty of making fun of the holocaust.

[cradleandshoot]

97727158_1352557478265403_4580275754360635392_n.jpg

Yep. This is just as bad as the Holocaust.

Only 5 million 900 thousand to go.

Load up the train. The heat should kill it, right?

Right on cue... the peanut gallery chimes in.

[RedFromMI]

Early data show Moderna Covid-19 vaccine generates immune response

https://www.statnews.com/2020/05/18/ear ... -response/

That would be great news. If it really is ready to go by January, do you think they will call it the Biden vaccine?

More detail from TalkingPointsMemo:

Next phase is to determine the correct dose - the 8 person trial (actually that is just the number of completed data numbers - there were 45 people in the study ages 18-55) just completed found too many short term side effects of a high dose version (100 vs 25 micrograms). They will be trying 50 as well as continuing with 25. They also tested a single 250 microgram dose as well.

Two doses were given - the 25 microgram doses gave antibody levels in the middle-aged volunteers similar to people who had COVID-19, while the 100 went well higher.

After setting the dose level in the next phase, a longer term study is expected to start in July (last study not yet approved - but unless there are problems should happen).

[Typical Lax Dad]

97727158_1352557478265403_4580275754360635392_n.jpg

Yep. This is just as bad as the Holocaust.

Only 5 million 900 thousand to go.

Load up the train. The heat should kill it, right?

Right on cue... the peanut gallery chimes in.

Yes you did....

[kramerica.inc]

We aren’t selfish. And we were told it’s so transmittable that everyone probably has it. And there’s nothing to do about it anyway.

Wrong. We were told it was more transmittable than the flu, but not to the point where everyone has it. Even the best numbers for NYC have fewer than a quarter of the population infected. Most of the rest of the country - a few percent to around 5 percent.

So Assume you have it, self quarantine and join the 99.95% that end up being fine.

Absolutely a dangerous thing to do. And the death rate alone is likely to end up between a half percent and one percent. Plus a lot more complications healthwise than the flu.

You have a better chance of dying in a car accident than you do of covid.

This is your most laughable claim. Chance of dying IF you get in a car accident are higher, but the chance of getting in an accident makes that one way lower in terms of death rate. (A 1% car accident death rate for the American population would mean around 3.2 million people per year...

These aren’t claims.

My post was referring to the article about lack of test subjects. This is what the public has been told by the talking heads on tv for the past 2+ mos and what we’re seeing in practice locally.

My point is - we take risks in everything we do. We will ultimately accept the unlikely risk of catching covid and dying like we do for many things in life. You have a likely chance of getting into a car accident and dying in your everyday travels as you do catching covid and dying. It can surely happen, but probably won’t, and you can always take plenty of precautions to improve your personal odds.

"lack of test subjects"???

I must have missed that reference and topic.

do you mean that in some areas they have tests ready and waiting for all residents of that area?

or is this in reference to they have enough tests for all those presenting with symptoms...and expanded to all medical workers and first responders? or expanded further?

That's certainly not been the case until recently in any area with hot spots. Nope, even with symptoms it's been difficult to get a test scheduled.

That's getting better, but certainly not remotely the kind of broadly available testing necessary to assure an employer that everyone they're letting in their door has been tested and is virus-free. Same for retailers or other service providers, much less restaurants.

re car deaths, there are less than 6 million accidents per year reported. Less than 40K deaths annually. Get in an accident and you have a chance of dying about 1.7%. But chance of an accident? Tiny. Risk of contracting Covid? Extremely high without distancing etc or vaccine.

Which is why 90k deaths in less than 3 months versus less than 40k deaths full year.
And that's with many of us not metaphorically 'getting in the car' these past 3 months.
Otherwise, that death toll would be much higher still.

here is the WaPo story we were referencing:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/as-co ... spartandhp

A Washington Post survey of governors’ offices and state health departments found at least a dozen states where testing capacity outstrips the supply of patients. Many have scrambled to make testing more convenient, especially for vulnerable communities, by setting up pop-up sites and developing apps that help assess symptoms, find free test sites and deliver quick results.

But the numbers, while rising, are well short of capacity — and far short of targets set by independent experts. Utah, for example, is conducting about 3,500 tests a day, a little more than a third of its 9,000-test maximum capacity, and health officials have erected highway billboards begging drivers to “GET TESTED FOR COVID-19.”

Why aren’t more people showing up? “Well, that’s the million-dollar question,” said Utah Health Department spokesman Tom Hudachko. “It could be simply that people don’t want to be tested. It could be that people feel like they don’t need to be tested. It could be that people are so mildly symptomatic that they’re just not concerned that having a positive lab result would actually change their course in any meaningful way."

Experts say several factors may be preventing more people from seeking tests, including a lingering sense of scarcity, a lack of access in rural and underserved communities, concerns about cost, and skepticism about testing operations.
”

[Typical Lax Dad]

We aren’t selfish. And we were told it’s so transmittable that everyone probably has it. And there’s nothing to do about it anyway.

Wrong. We were told it was more transmittable than the flu, but not to the point where everyone has it. Even the best numbers for NYC have fewer than a quarter of the population infected. Most of the rest of the country - a few percent to around 5 percent.

So Assume you have it, self quarantine and join the 99.95% that end up being fine.

Absolutely a dangerous thing to do. And the death rate alone is likely to end up between a half percent and one percent. Plus a lot more complications healthwise than the flu.

You have a better chance of dying in a car accident than you do of covid.

This is your most laughable claim. Chance of dying IF you get in a car accident are higher, but the chance of getting in an accident makes that one way lower in terms of death rate. (A 1% car accident death rate for the American population would mean around 3.2 million people per year...

These aren’t claims.

My post was referring to the article about lack of test subjects. This is what the public has been told by the talking heads on tv for the past 2+ mos and what we’re seeing in practice locally.

My point is - we take risks in everything we do. We will ultimately accept the unlikely risk of catching covid and dying like we do for many things in life. You have a likely chance of getting into a car accident and dying in your everyday travels as you do catching covid and dying. It can surely happen, but probably won’t, and you can always take plenty of precautions to improve your personal odds.

"lack of test subjects"???

I must have missed that reference and topic.

do you mean that in some areas they have tests ready and waiting for all residents of that area?

or is this in reference to they have enough tests for all those presenting with symptoms...and expanded to all medical workers and first responders? or expanded further?

That's certainly not been the case until recently in any area with hot spots. Nope, even with symptoms it's been difficult to get a test scheduled.

That's getting better, but certainly not remotely the kind of broadly available testing necessary to assure an employer that everyone they're letting in their door has been tested and is virus-free. Same for retailers or other service providers, much less restaurants.

re car deaths, there are less than 6 million accidents per year reported. Less than 40K deaths annually. Get in an accident and you have a chance of dying about 1.7%. But chance of an accident? Tiny. Risk of contracting Covid? Extremely high without distancing etc or vaccine.

Which is why 90k deaths in less than 3 months versus less than 40k deaths full year.
And that's with many of us not metaphorically 'getting in the car' these past 3 months.
Otherwise, that death toll would be much higher still.

We have had 85,000 deaths in 40 days and that’s a highly probable under count.

[MDlaxfan76]

We aren’t selfish. And we were told it’s so transmittable that everyone probably has it. And there’s nothing to do about it anyway.

Wrong. We were told it was more transmittable than the flu, but not to the point where everyone has it. Even the best numbers for NYC have fewer than a quarter of the population infected. Most of the rest of the country - a few percent to around 5 percent.

So Assume you have it, self quarantine and join the 99.95% that end up being fine.

Absolutely a dangerous thing to do. And the death rate alone is likely to end up between a half percent and one percent. Plus a lot more complications healthwise than the flu.

You have a better chance of dying in a car accident than you do of covid.

This is your most laughable claim. Chance of dying IF you get in a car accident are higher, but the chance of getting in an accident makes that one way lower in terms of death rate. (A 1% car accident death rate for the American population would mean around 3.2 million people per year...

These aren’t claims.

My post was referring to the article about lack of test subjects. This is what the public has been told by the talking heads on tv for the past 2+ mos and what we’re seeing in practice locally.

My point is - we take risks in everything we do. We will ultimately accept the unlikely risk of catching covid and dying like we do for many things in life. You have a likely chance of getting into a car accident and dying in your everyday travels as you do catching covid and dying. It can surely happen, but probably won’t, and you can always take plenty of precautions to improve your personal odds.

"lack of test subjects"???

I must have missed that reference and topic.

do you mean that in some areas they have tests ready and waiting for all residents of that area?

or is this in reference to they have enough tests for all those presenting with symptoms...and expanded to all medical workers and first responders? or expanded further?

That's certainly not been the case until recently in any area with hot spots. Nope, even with symptoms it's been difficult to get a test scheduled.

That's getting better, but certainly not remotely the kind of broadly available testing necessary to assure an employer that everyone they're letting in their door has been tested and is virus-free. Same for retailers or other service providers, much less restaurants.

re car deaths, there are less than 6 million accidents per year reported. Less than 40K deaths annually. Get in an accident and you have a chance of dying about 1.7%. But chance of an accident? Tiny. Risk of contracting Covid? Extremely high without distancing etc or vaccine.

Which is why 90k deaths in less than 3 months versus less than 40k deaths full year.
And that's with many of us not metaphorically 'getting in the car' these past 3 months.
Otherwise, that death toll would be much higher still.

here is the WaPo story we were referencing:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/as-co ... spartandhp

A Washington Post survey of governors’ offices and state health departments found at least a dozen states where testing capacity outstrips the supply of patients. Many have scrambled to make testing more convenient, especially for vulnerable communities, by setting up pop-up sites and developing apps that help assess symptoms, find free test sites and deliver quick results.

But the numbers, while rising, are well short of capacity — and far short of targets set by independent experts. Utah, for example, is conducting about 3,500 tests a day, a little more than a third of its 9,000-test maximum capacity, and health officials have erected highway billboards begging drivers to “GET TESTED FOR COVID-19.”

Why aren’t more people showing up? “Well, that’s the million-dollar question,” said Utah Health Department spokesman Tom Hudachko. “It could be simply that people don’t want to be tested. It could be that people feel like they don’t need to be tested. It could be that people are so mildly symptomatic that they’re just not concerned that having a positive lab result would actually change their course in any meaningful way."

Experts say several factors may be preventing more people from seeking tests, including a lingering sense of scarcity, a lack of access in rural and underserved communities, concerns about cost, and skepticism about testing operations.
”

Utah has a population of 3.2 million and they say they could now do 9,000 tests per day, 63K per week if open every day. So, how many months would it take for everyone to have been tested once, if everyone came in...so yeah, folks probably think there's 'scarcity'. I'm not going to ask for a test until I'm confident that everyone who is at serious risk has been tested, not just once but periodically based on risk. which means I can be walking around asymptomatic and not know it.

So, let's say I have a business like a restaurant and I want all my employees to be tested weekly to be sure they're not going to be infected...uhh ohh, not all businesses could do that, right?

How about if I really wanted to create a safe environment for my customers and I required all to have been tested in the past week (or two) and be registered in an app telling me so? If I had that, a heck of a lot more customers would feel comfortable being in such a setting, right?

oops, can't do that either.

Now, this isn't such a big problem if there's a very good test, trace and isolate program, not just tests. If someone is identified with COVID you don't wait for people to come in, you track them down and have them tested post haste.

[youthathletics]

Interesting....

[ardilla secreta]

New Covid vaccine getting positive results.

https://images.app.goo.gl/89h1C7mf9P8FB9QE9

[tech37]

Early data show Moderna Covid-19 vaccine generates immune response

https://www.statnews.com/2020/05/18/ear ... -response/

That would be great news. If it really is ready to go by January, do you think they will call it the Biden vaccine?

Nah, the Biden vaccine is for preventing senility.

[old salt]

Old Salt was comparing France at 65MM people to the USA.

...in response to a post comparing France's testing with the US's.
If testing is a such panacea (& US failure), why is France's death rate so much higher than the US's ?
With a smaller population, spread over a smaller area, & a superior testing program, why is France's death rate not lower than the US's ?

Otherwise, I've compared the US with the W Euro nations, in the aggregate, who have attempted to accurately report their data, as the most relevant

Are you saying South Korea's reporting is inaccurate?

Did someone say France's testing program was better than the US?
Germany's definitely much better, not sure that's true of France.
Germany's deaths per 1mm pop is 96, US 275 (so far).

You do realize that the death rate comparison related to geography would actually be an explanation of higher death rate in France than overall US, due to density? Perhaps you'd like to compare France's death rates to a comparable geography and population say, NY and NJ, both of which have death rates per 1mm over double France's?

Duh. Are you saying S Korea is a W Euro nation ?

Read the thread I'm responding to. Ignore the voices in your head.

I agree that the record of NY & NJ PH effort has been dismal -- eg nursing homes, under-utilization of hospital ship/field hospitals, & failure to lock down, test & trace early.

Like the MSM, you let the NYC metro experience skew what needs to be done in the rest of the US.

hmmm, no, we blew the early testing...at the federal level.

Are you saying SK is phoning their results from test and trace? Their death rates?
Or Germany?

The federal response was dismal, NY got hit first and hardest, with the European strain. It spread like wildfire and was not contained until far too late. Density.

Compare France to NY, which last I checked is America.

under utilization of hospital ships, field hospitals??? Baloney. The PPE wasn't available, those additional beds weren't available until after the heaviest crunch hit...they helped but it was all too late.

6 weeks lost at the federal level. NY and neighbors just took the big hit first.

The rest of the country is going to be a slower burn...we hope.

I'm saying exactly what I said. No need for you to embellish it, on my behalf, or use it to project another of your tedious, self-serving, sermonettes.

There was no vaild reason to send positive covid patients back into nursing homes while 4 field hospitals in the NYC area sat empty.

Did NYC have a Health Dept capable of contact tracing, or was their mission soley to hype ethnic celebrations & parades ?

"tedious", probably.

"Self-serving", how so?
What do you possibly imagine I would personally get out of this?

As usual, you avoid any actual discussion of counterpoints.

Obviously mistakes were made at the local level, all sorts of mistakes. When you are prepared to castigate Trump for his repeated assurances to the country that there was nothing to worry about, based on presumably the expertise of the bloody federal government, both IC and medical experts devoted to this exact sort of national and international crisis, then we can examine the local mistakes of those with far less information.

And when you honestly compare responses between countries, we can discuss them more rationally as well. Again, all sorts of mistakes were made by many other than Trump and the US. But some did much better based on different decisions made.

Can we actually learn from those better decisions?

It's particularly annoying that there's such resistance to learning from those countries which have had repeated pandemic experiences over the years and thus have developed far swifter and coherent responses to new virus challenges.

Again -- despite all your blather, I'm saying what I said, in response to a post comparing testing by the US with France (not S Korea).

I'm comparing the results for the US with what I consider to be the most relevant comparison -- the most populous, advanced W Euro democracies, with comparable health care systems & an apparent commitment to accurate reporting.

You chose to (again) hold up S Korea as the standard you feel we should have attained. You insist on inserting that in every discussion about the US response. That's unrealistic, for numerous reasons. Taiwan, Japan, Singapore & S Korea have recent experience dealing with other viral outbreaks & they have institutionalized their response mechanisms. I earlier posted an article explaining, in detail, S Korea's success. Those Asian nations are proving to be the exception, rather than the rule, particularly in comparison to western democracies where travel patterns & volume rapidly injected the infection. The US was hit from both directions, on both coasts -- from China & from Europe. S Korea was able to quickly identify & contain their initial outbreak hot spot & close their borders early.

[holmes435]

Interesting....

Source on all those numbers? The financial stuff (not to mention how much tax is actually collected as Texas has pretty high property taxes among other things) seems to be way off according to the state of Texas, so I'm a bit wary on the rest.