Coronavirus: what your country is doing, how you feel & general discussion

I

Inara

Senior Member
Messages
455
Hip said:
So this idea that there is a large pool of unrecorded asymptomatic cases does not seem to be correct.
Click to expand...
It's not about asymptomatic cases alone. It's that people don't get tested, even if they have symptoms. There are according instructions not to test.

Re. the paper: I don't view that as representative, if you allow me to say. :) But interesting nonetheless! I do think that virologists are correct if they say people (especially children) can remain asymptomatic. That's pretty normal for some viruses, too, isn't it? It is not being said that asymptomatic cases build the majority (I think they do not). What can be observed, though, is that there is barely testing.

Edit: I re-read your post. Did I understand you correctly that on the ship they found 50% asymptomatic cases? That's pretty high. Sounds too high...
 
Learner1

Learner1

Senior Member
Messages
6,311
Location
Pacific Northwest
Rufous McKinney said:
Do I dare go get the blood work I need for the ME when there is this risk...of undetected flus? Maybe I should not get those blood tests.
Click to expand...
As mentioned, Im in a community hit harder than most here in the US. I have had 4meducal appointments in the past week and have felt safe at the facilities. Signs are up everywhere telling people not to come in if sick, they are to stay hone and call their doctor who will direct them to certain facilities for testing and care, if needed. But, there are fewer than normal out and about at the medical facilities. Lots of routine appointments cancelled. I think it is best if we get the care we need and are in tip top shape of and when we get sick .
Hip said:
There's been speculation that there might be a large pool of infected people who are not recorded in the official figures, because their infection was very mild or asymptomatic, and thus they were not aware they caught the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, or did not seek medical help and did not report it.

That speculation went on for some time, but the published study from the infected cruise ship the Diamond Princess — in which nearly everyone was tested — shows that there is not a large pool of unrecorded asymptomatic cases.

If you look at table 2 in the paper, you can see that the ratio of systematic to asymptomatic cases is approximately 1:1, as out of the 3711 people in the ship, there were total of 301 symptomatic cases, and 318 asymptomatic cases.

Although in younger people under 60, there were more symptomatic cases than asymptomatic, for some reason: for the under 60s I counted up on table 2 that there is a total of 101 symptomatic cases, but only 53 asymptomatic cases.

So this idea that there is a large pool of unrecorded asymptomatic cases does not seem to be correct.
Click to expand...
This is ridiculous. A researcher here in Seattle has mapped the viral genome for several cases and found that the virus has quietly circulated since his January here, infecting a random high schooler miles from the known patients. In addition to the infamous LifeCare senior center, there are 10 other senior centers with patients spread across a fairly large geography. He also linked the first known case in January here to the cases on the Grand Princess. So, seems like it can quietly go a long way, likely in asymptomatic people.


With all of this said, handwashing, disinfecting surfaces, and social distancing can go a long way to keep people safe. And if sick, staying home, and vitamins C, D, and botanical antiviral can be helpful. This came out a couple days ago from the Immunodeficiency Foundation:

 
Hip

Hip

Senior Member
Messages
18,148
Learner1 said:
This is ridiculous. A researcher here in Seattle has mapped the viral genome for several cases and found that the virus has quietly circulated since his January here, infecting a random high schooler miles from the known patients.
Click to expand...

I am not implying that asymptomatic cases do not exist. But the Diamond Princess study indicates that the number of asymptomatic cases is about the same size as the number of symptomatic cases.

Some people had been speculating that the symptomatic cases were just the tip of the iceberg, and that for every 1 recorded symptomatic case there might be say 10 unrecorded asymptomatic cases. But the Diamond Princess study suggests that is not true, because when the virus spread through the passengers and crew, it created about equal numbers of symptomatic and asymptomatic cases.

So if we assume that most of the symptomatic coronavirus cases are being detected and counted in the official figures, then the total number of cases (symptomatic + asymptomatic) will be about double what the official figures show.
 
Last edited:
A

andyguitar

Senior Member
Messages
6,691
Location
South east England
Learner1 said:
So, seems like it can quietly go a long way, likely in asymptomatic people.
Click to expand...
It's pretty hard to get a handle on whats going on at the moment @Learner1 as different countries have different testing protocols. In terms of the numbers likley to be infected and mortality rate I think the figures from South Korea are the most reliable at the moment. The high mortality rate in Italy is pretty strange. Either the numbers infected is much, much higher or they are failing their patients on a huge scale.
 
I

Inara

Senior Member
Messages
455
Hip said:
But the Diamond Princess study indicates that the number of asymptomatic cases is about the same size as the number of symptomatic cases.
Click to expand...
If true, that's a disaster for every one of the "risk group".

I find nearly NO willingness in healthy people to step back in order to protect sick and old people. This is not about the healthy - it is about protecting the vulnerable. Especially the asymptomatic cases - that infect others nonetheless - are dangerous because they don't know they have the virus, they will say the virus is harmless, and they won't see a reason to protect others (from what? It's harmless!). Why should a healthy person sustain from having fun...especially if the virus is "harmless"?
 
rainbowbluebells

rainbowbluebells

Senior Member
Messages
248
I think people are selfish here too :(
I try to write social media posts about not going to crowded events and gatherings how it protects Vulnerable people. But I just really hope more people can begin to find a collectivist attitude. Doesn’t help that our PM is behaving that way too (like saying crowds don’t matter etc, not caring about vulnerable people).!
 
rainbowbluebells

rainbowbluebells

Senior Member
Messages
248
One thing makes me sad. I don’t know why I get into social media conversations on some social media.
Some people genuinely, and truly, are agreeing with the herd immunity premise.

firstly, we have no idea if herd immunity can ever be reached. We know nothing much about the coronavirus and how fast it mutates etc. There might not be any type of herd immunity reached, only death. In any case, herd immunity is spoken about in vaccinations. - not allowing it to infect a whole population.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1238425628061380608

then there’s the sheer ethical and moral horror of basically having a “plan” of allowing a virus to rampage through the population at will, killing elderly and vulnerable people.

I tried to argue with people on social media but it took my energy which isn’t good so I stopped. I just feel so confused that people truly believe in and can justify what the govt are saying.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1238425629839761410
 
Hip

Hip

Senior Member
Messages
18,148
Inara said:
I find nearly NO willingness in healthy people to step back in order to protect sick and old people.
Click to expand...

Funny you say that: I live with two parents in their 80s, who are the most vulnerable age group, who seem to be a little negligent in self-protection

In my own case, I very rarely have any contact with the public: I only go out for walks a few times per week in the very uncrowded suburban streets around my house (so almost zero risk of catching a virus); and once a week I meet two friends of mine at home for a regular social chat. That's my entire exposure to the outside world. So I am unlikely to bring home coronavirus.

But my parents are out and about far more than me, and I am finding it hard to convince them not to go out shopping. They find it boring staying at home all day, and enjoy going out for food shopping in supermarkets. And my mother loves spending hours in shopping centers and shopping high streets.

I suggested that they should only do food shopping once a week at most; or better still, only order food online. But they still go out every day to the supermarket. Although my mother has fortunately stopped going to shopping centers for the moment, and they fortunately are no longer using public transport.

I am not too concerned about catching the virus myself; but I don't want them to catch it, as they are at much higher risk of death, being over 80.
 
Last edited:
A

andyguitar

Senior Member
Messages
6,691
Location
South east England
rainbowbluebells said:
then there’s the sheer ethical and moral horror of basically having a “plan” of allowing a virus to rampage through the population at will, killing elderly and vulnerable people.
Click to expand...
The idea behind this is that if a lot of healthy people get infected and only suffer a mild illness (like a normal cold) then the virus burns itself out. During the period that 'herd immunity' builds up those who are at risk of developing severe symptoms are kept away from the healthy infected. It's a tactic to buy time for a vaccine to be developed and for existing drugs to be tried. But it would only work if people use their commonsense and dont put the vunerable at risk. Sorry to say it but you cant rely on the government in the UK to take what would seem to be drastic action. And anyway it's probably to late for that. So the public need to sort this out theirselves.
 
Hip

Hip

Senior Member
Messages
18,148
Inara said:
Which you definitely can't...
Click to expand...

Obviously not every symptomatic case of SARS-CoV-2 infection will be recorded, so in order to calculate the total number infected, you would have to guesstimate the percentage of symptomatic cases which are actually recorded in the official figures.
 
rainbowbluebells

rainbowbluebells

Senior Member
Messages
248
andyguitar said:
The idea behind this is that if a lot of healthy people get infected and only suffer a mild illness (like a normal cold) then the virus burns itself out. During the period that 'herd immunity' builds up those who are at risk of developing severe symptoms are kept away from the healthy infected. It's a tactic to buy time for a vaccine to be developed and for existing drugs to be tried. But it would only work if people use their commonsense and dont put the vunerable at risk. Sorry to say it but you cant rely on the government in the UK to take what would seem to be drastic action. And anyway it's probably to late for that. So the public need to sort this out theirselves.
Click to expand...

yes except there’s absolutely no evidence that this will happen. As the former director of the WHO says In his thread I posted above, about the uncertainty of it all (the whole thread is worth a read though! Not just the last one I’m posting) :

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1238425637100101635

- we don’t even know how this virus mutates
-we don’t know if herd immunity can even be reached for this virus, if it mutates too quickly for that to happen

It’s an absolutely bizarre plan and tactic, It’s based on so many presumptions that we don’t even know about. Whereas every other country’s plan is to minimise spread of infection, lock it down, in fact if containment measures are good enough then like China if Re<1, the virus could die off on its own. But in any case, minimising casualties.
 
A

andyguitar

Senior Member
Messages
6,691
Location
South east England
rainbowbluebells said:
It’s an absolutely bizarre plan and tactic, It’s based on so many presumptions that we don’t even know about. Whereas every other country’s plan is to minimise spread of infection, lock it down, in fact if containment measures are good enough then like China if Re<1, the virus would die off on its own.
Click to expand...
At this stage when it is probable that thousands are infected its all there is.
 
rainbowbluebells

rainbowbluebells

Senior Member
Messages
248
I thought there was another post earlier about what to do about appointments, sorry I can’t find it.
At the moment I’m waiting for some appts which are quite urgent. My plan was to try to get them done quickly, before the pandemic climbs even more, but it looks like it may take some time and I’ll end up doing surgery when the numbers of cases will be really high :( but there’s not much I can do really.
other appts I may try to put them off until numbers of cases go down.
 
Hip

Hip

Senior Member
Messages
18,148
rainbowbluebells said:
yes except there’s absolutely no evidence that this will happen.
Click to expand...

Yes there is: the evidence comes from a standard understanding of immunology, and how the immune system develops protective antibodies once exposed to an infection.

The idea would work very well if we could somehow predict in advance which people will only get mild symptoms, and allow those people to get infected first. Once someone is infected, they will have immunity henceforth, at least for a few years hence anyway. This is because the adaptive immune system creates antibodies to the virus within days of you being infected.

Once more and more people develop immunity, the virus will stop spreading. This is because a virus can only spread if it finds new susceptible hosts; but when more and more people have immunity, the virus finds it harder and harder to find any further susceptible hosts, so the epidemic eventually fizzles out. This is exactly how vaccines prevent infectious outbreaks.


Ethically it might be argued that the young and health should be exposed first, to create the herd immunity that will cause the epidemic to fizzle out. That way, the virus will never reach older or unhealthy people, who are at higher risk of dying.

However, even for the young and healthy, there is still some risk of death. So ethically it's a hard call to make.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back