The Coronavirus Thread

[Brian Peacock]

I believe that humans and mustela lutreola can live together in peace.

[Brian Peacock]

I just heard on a medical magazine program on the radio that the strain on your body of being on a ventilator is equivalent to running 10k a day.

I wonder what our resident jogger thinks about that?

[NineBerry]

I just heard on a medical magazine program on the radio that the strain on your body of being on a ventilator is equivalent to running 10k a day.

I wonder what our resident jogger thinks about that?

IMG_20200520_164633.jpg (52.76 KiB) Viewed 1550 times

The Corona Diet

[Brian Peacock]

Eeek!

[NineBerry]

Source https://t.co/hLJX3HDP8L?amp=1

[Cunt]

I just heard on a medical magazine program on the radio that the strain on your body of being on a ventilator is equivalent to running 10k a day.

I wonder what our resident jogger thinks about that?

I think it's nothing.

Dave Proctor (an elite runner) has been running 10 times that, and is FINE.

The Gumprunner, out of Ontario (a guy who runs a moving company) has been running 70km a day for the last few. He doesn't eat meat, and doesn't get haircuts. He's FINE.

I regularly run about that much 81.2km in the last 7 days. I'm fine.

If a chubby 'normie' (non-runner) did it, they would ruin themselves.

So it's a shit example, but I think most people will feel sufficient dread. To me, cardio seems more important than ever now. The Rona is killing fatties pretty fucking indiscriminately. About the highest risk group, especially when added to other risk factors. Probably not nice to talk about that though. We have a cultural problem speaking directly about obesity.

Like affluence is shameful, and our expanding waistband is like a visible representation of our shame.

Any population whose members ran 10k a day, would be a MUCH healthier population than a sedentary one like ours.

[Brian Peacock]

Blimey. Somebody clearly isn't get enough.

[Cunt]

Blimey. Somebody clearly isn't get enough.

Yeah, I think I need to go for a run.

Care to join me?

[Brian Peacock]

I've burnt my calories for the day thanks, but you go ahead. Knock yourself out.

[Cunt]

I've burnt my calories for the day thanks, but you go ahead. Knock yourself out.

Changed my plan. Did my pull workout instead (WOOHOO! 8 pullups three times ) and I'll do a slow run out to the river later, for hotdogs over a fire with friends and my sweetheart.

Our area has relaxed restrictions a bit, so we can hang with our loved ones. I hope you get some of the same soon (if you haven't already)

[JimC]

The thing with minks does not surprise me. They're using ferrets (a close relative) as test animals when working towards a vaccine; they get infected, but only have mild symptoms (so we're not being too horrible to them...)

[JimC]

Here is an excellent article discussing the large variability in case and death numbers between countries:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-21/ ... s/12264610

No 'one size fits all' explanation

We have all been told of the slow responses, the lack of testing kits and shortages of personal protective gear. And, of course, Australia has been a standout success amongst the wealthy nations.

But there are some simple reasons why others in our cohort of privilege have failed so badly. According to experts, it comes down to a number of factors.

The raw figures compiled by Johns Hopkins University in the United States tell a number of stories.

But perhaps the most stark is the fact that the US, UK, Italy, France and Spain currently account for a shocking 70 per cent of all deaths.

Each of them is rich, with a sophisticated health system. And while their deadly curves are being ironed out, there is a lethal legacy already, with the threat of future waves to come.

Russia and Brazil are now threatening to join them at the top of these grim charts.

But many poorer and middle-income nations have, so far at least, largely been spared the carnage of wealthier countries.

There is no 'one size fits all' explanation — every single nation, including Australia, has its own coronavirus twists and turns — but there are some general observations that seem to make sense.

The worst-hit countries are amongst the most mobile and are home to some of the world's busiest airports, handling hundreds of millions of passengers each year.

People in richer countries have the luxury of international travel and enjoy strong global trade links, particularly with China, where the outbreak evolved.

The affluence that allowed for this international travel undoubtedly spread the virus quickly and efficiently.

This reduced the reaction time and proved a curse for cosmopolitan cities like New York, London and Paris. Their very desirability as international centres was, in part, their downfall.

The lower levels of travel to low to middle-income countries could help explain why they were able to escape the virus, at least in the early days of the pandemic.

According to Professor Tony Blakely, an epidemiologist and public health specialist at the University of Melbourne, this gave them "time to prepare and do some form of physical distancing".

"[It wasn't a] silver bullet, but that extra time meant they were not as far advanced in their epidemic and they have had more ability to put control in place," he told the ABC.

"The virus got out of China and then went to close East Asian countries, and then by travel went to Europe and North America very quickly rather than, say, to India or Africa."

Dr Abrar Chughtai, an epidemiologist in the School of Public Health and Community Medicine at UNSW Sydney, agrees that the low number of "seeding cases" could help explain why some countries have done very well so far.

"To start a pandemic you need a number of seeding cases in the community," he said.

"In Australia we don't have a high number of cases, but it happened in the US and [other countries], where they did see a high number of cases possibly due to high travel.

"So, the human travel trends might be important to look at."

But that apparent advantage for many poorer countries may rapidly disappear as the virus starts to take hold in those countries in the coming weeks.

Unlike the Spanish flu of 100 years ago, which killed young, otherwise healthy adults in their millions, this time it's the old who are at greater risk.

Professor Blakely says age — and by extension ageing populations — is certainly one factor in how the coronavirus could impact some countries.

"The chance of dying if you get the virus varies massively by age. Massively," he said.

"From nearly infinitesimally small for someone under 20 … a one in 10,000 chance [of probability of dying], and then up to north of 10 per cent, maybe even 15 per cent, if you're over 80. "

Professor Blakely says the younger age structure of some of the low and middle-income countries might act "a little bit like herd immunity".

"It's like having more of your population at an age where they don't transmit it as easily, I think that's probably happening to some extent, though it's speculation on my part," he said.

Mary-Louise McLaws, who is a member of the World Health Organization's Health Emergencies Program Experts Advisory Panel for Infection Prevention and Control Preparedness, Readiness and Response to COVID-19, says age has been a huge factor.

"In Italy, they have the highest proportion of an elderly population of anywhere in Europe," she told the ABC.

"So it's about a quarter are 65 and over, and they have of course, high rates of smoking, plus high levels of comorbidities."

Why have middle-income Asian countries done well?

It comes down to experience and preparation. For middle-income Asian nations, this is not their first pandemic threat.

Swine flu in 2009, bird flu in the 1990s, and SARS in 2003 were concentrated in Asian countries, giving South Korea, Malaysia, Hong Kong and Taiwan more recent experience with dangerous viruses.

As a result the lockdowns happened quickly, as did mass testing and high tech contact tracing procedures.

Professor Blakley says their exposure to SARS in some ways prepared them for this recent pandemic.

"They've got the systems in place. They know what they're doing. They acted fast," he said.

"They knew what the threats were, and definitely previous dealings with having to manage SARS have made those countries far better positioned to respond to COVID."

Professor Jodie McVernon, the Doherty Institute's epidemiology director, also says countries like Hong Kong, Singapore and South Korea invested in strong public health systems and extensive laboratory capacity, "which were actually the critical elements of initial response".

"Early border closures to reduce the risk of imported infections were also influential and were a key difference between Australia's response and the US [and] Europe," she told the ABC.

So did the West get complacent?

If you look at the Global Health Security Index list, preparation — in terms of good health care, resources and stockpiles — didn't necessarily translate to containing the coronavirus.

Professor McLaws says while a lack of recent experience in some developed countries may have played a role, tackling the spread of coronavirus also came down to leadership and governance.

"One of the reasons Taiwan has done so well is because they organised their ventilators very early on, and closed their borders to China as soon as they heard about what was going on," she said.

"They knew it was catastrophic and they started to order thousands of ventilators."

She also says the WHO proclaimed a public health emergency of international concern on January 30, so "none of those 194 countries could possibly suggest that they did not know".

"Everyone had a heads up," she said.

"So for those countries that may try to say they didn't have enough time to prepare, it's disingenuous.

"They did not need to wait until March 11, until WHO called a pandemic — that was an academic exercise."

But can you trust the data? In a word, no. There are so many variables, with capacities, capabilities and honesty far from guaranteed.

In Britain, deaths in aged care facilities and in people's homes weren't counted for weeks.

Demographers have also disputed Russia's relatively low death toll, given Moscow's mortality rate for April alone appears to be up by almost 20 per cent.

And according to the Johns Hopkins University research, more than 16 per cent of all confirmed COVID-19-infected patients in Belgium have died.

In France it's 15.3 per cent, the UK 14.1 per cent, Spain 11.9 per cent and Sweden 12.3 per cent.

Interestingly, while the US has the highest actual death toll, the ratio of deaths to recorded COVID-19 cases is 5.5 per cent. In Australia, it's just 1.5 per cent.

But there are a number of variables that need to be factored in, including the rate of testing, the methods of recording deaths and even suspicions of cover-ups in some countries.

Professor McLaws acknowledges "the mortality rates are often incorrectly calculated" and in some cases, are "probably higher than what's being given".

There might also be an unreported shadow pandemic unfolding in developing nations, which will become more apparent as time goes on.

"It's already in Africa, but some of the problems are that they don't have a surveillance system that is anywhere near to the level of well-resourced countries," Professor McLaws said.

"So a lot of deaths will go unattributed to COVID-19 and a lot of morbidity and future death down the track, as it can take people up to 30 days to die."

Professor McVernon agrees that deaths in some low-income countries may become more apparent down the track, but she also says poverty or low levels of income doesn't necessarily guarantee a disaster.

She says some lower-income nations like Vietnam and Thailand have marshalled their "excellent and well established health systems" to manage the spread, while other nations like Cambodia and Papua New Guinea have experienced "sporadic cases".

The world is only at the beginning of its coronavirus journey

Australia's deputy chief medical officer Paul Kelly also suggests that testing and data might give us a false sense that people in high-income nations are dying at greater numbers, and this is not a disease of the rich.

"Testing is a great help but not everyone who is sick in the world or has been sick in the world has been tested," he said.

While the bald figures indicate a failure to act quickly or effectively in the worst-hit and richest nations, most experts agree it is too early to draw definitive answers.

Yes, complacency and overconfidence played their part and undoubtedly cost tens of thousands of lives, but older demographics and comorbidity factors also had a role.

So if we were to cast this as an affluence virus, we would only be partly right. That's because wealthy nations like ours, New Zealand, Germany and Greece were able to suppress the spread through early and tough action.

And while the lockdowns and restrictions seem to have lasted an eternity, this is just the beginning.

Countries like Australia that have done well, may not do so in the future. And if, as expected, COVID-19 hits the poorest countries hard in the coming months, there may well be a levelling effect to come.

We really are in the dense fog of this long, painful war. Only hindsight will reveal the complex cat's cradle of cause, reaction and effect.

But from the vantage point of the here and now, the images of shattered doctors and nurses, and ambulances waiting for hours on emergency department ramps, speak clearly of failure in the very countries that should have been best prepared.

[pErvinalia]

tl:dr!

[L'Emmerdeur]

You probably won't like this one then. Describes using the CRISPR technique and technology to create an at-home test for SARS-CoV-2.

'Rapid home-based coronavirus tests are coming together in research labs — we’re working on analyzing spit using advanced CRISPR gene editing techniques'

A desperately needed tool to curb the COVID-19 pandemic is an inexpensive home-based rapid testing kit that can detect the coronavirus without needing to go to the hospital.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a few home sample collection kits but a number of researchers, including myself, are using the gene-editing technique known as CRISPR to make home tests. If they work, these tests could be very accurate and give people an answer in about an hour.

I am a biomolecular scientist with training in pharmaceutical sciences and biomedical engineering and my lab focuses on developing next-generation of technologies for detecting and treating cancer, genetic and infectious diseases.

The COVID-19 disease is caused by a coronavirus named severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Unlike humans which carry their genetic material encoded in DNA, the coronavirus encodes theirs in a related molecule called RNA.

My research group recently engineered a sensitive CRISPR-based technology, that we named CRISPR-ENHANCE, and used it to create a rapid test for SARS-CoV-2 RNA. Our assay works like a pregnancy test and shows two purple colored lines if the sample is positive for the virus. Using our technology, I envision developing a test kit that would allow rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in saliva within 45-60 minutes at home without needing any expensive equipment.

[JimC]

tl:dr!

That should only apply to Cunt and his ilk, not the wondrous information I provide!