Coronavirus

[minutemenX]

I am not talking about the current death rate, but the death rate calculated and compared when pandemic is over. Hopefully in 2-3 years the death rate will go to “normal” numbers. My bet is that COVID pandemic will increase the US yearly death rate by 5-10% in 2020.

 

[OnJustALark]

Your calculation is dead wrong...... absurdly so. ... .

Your words ... in a few months .... that took into account the 'few months' now we've been at this china virus thing ...

Your words ... mortality rate world wide stand at 2-3$ ... that number I posted IS 3% of world wide population ...

Of Course the number of case will continue to grow ... as more testing is done - I bet many MA-NY on this Board have had this virus and didn't know it cuz you wee NOT tested - just a chest cold or little congestion - felt better with your regular remedy - Nyquil, Tyleno Cold/ Flu.

And yes, people will continue to die ... as they do with the flu ...

And yes, flu comes back in the late fall and will impact people because the shot doesn't;t cover every strain ... surprise surprise ... will be same with latest china virus ...

Will be especially BAD in the fall ... i assure you ... know how I know? I bet you intellects can figure it out ... come on, who knows? Raise you hand or just shout out the answer

 

[CaptRenault]

A Stanford University doctor writes in the NY Post:

Science says: It’s time to start easing the lockdowns

By Scott Atlas April 26, 2020 |

nypost.com

The consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic have been enormous, and New York has suffered more than anywhere else in the world. Compared as a separate country, the New York area would rank, by far, as No. 1 for deaths per capita.

The New York-New Jersey-Connecticut tri-state area accounts for approximately 60 percent of all US deaths. Theories abound, but the New York area itself is different: New York is the top port of entry for the hundreds of thousands of tourists coming to the US every month from China; Gotham has a uniquely high density of living that swells daily by millions from workers and tourists; and Manhattan sees some 1.6 million commuters daily, mostly on crowded public transit, including 320,000 from Jersey alone.

Yet the pandemic toll is falling, dramatically so in New York, *including both hospitalizations and deaths per day. Few doubt that the unprecedented isolation policies had a significant *impact on “flattening the curves.”

Now, we face another, even greater problem: how to sensibly re-enter normal life. This must be based on what we now know, not on worst-case projections, using facts and fundamental medical knowledge, not fear or single-vision policies.

First, we know the risk of *dying from COVID-19 is far lower than initially thought, and not significant for the overwhelming majority of those infected.

Multiple recent studies from Iceland, Germany, USC, Stanford and New York City all suggest that the fatality rate if infected is likely far lower than early estimates, perhaps under 0.1 to 0.4 percent, i.e., 10 to 40 times lower than estimates that motivated extreme isolation.

In the Big Apple, with almost one-third of all US deaths, the rate of death for all people ages 18 to 45 is 0.01 percent, or 13 per 100,000 in the population, one-eightieth of the rate for people aged 75 and over. For people under 18, the rate of death is zero per 100,000. Of Empire State fatalities, almost two-thirds were over 70 years of age. And regardless of age, if you don’t already have an underlying chronic condition, your chances of dying are small. Of 7,959 NYC COVID-19 deaths fully investigated for underlying conditions, 99.2 percent had an underlying illness.

Second, protecting older, at-risk people helps prevent hospital overcrowding. Of New York City’s 38,000 hospitalizations, less than 1 percent have been patients under 18 years of age. Studying 4,103 confirmed COVID-19 patients with symptoms bad enough to seek medical care, Dr. Leora Horwitz of NYU Medical Center concluded: “Age is far and away the strongest risk factor for hospitalization.”

Recent studies show a far more widespread rate of infection and lower rate of serious illness than early World Health Organization reports that noted 80 percent of all cases were mild. The vast majority of younger, otherwise healthy people don’t get hospitalized.

Third, due to fear and the single-minded focus on COVID-19 regardless of cost, other people are dying. Critical medical care isn’t being provided. Millions of Americans have missed critical health care for fear of encountering the disease, and people are dying to make room for “potential” coronavirus patients.

When states and hospitals abruptly stopped “nonessential” procedures and surgery, that didn’t mean unimportant care. Treatments for the most serious illnesses, including emergency care, were missed. Some estimate about half of cancer patients deferred chemotherapy. Approximately 80 percent of brain surgery cases were skipped. Perhaps half or more of acute stroke and heart-attack *patients missed their only chances for early treatment, some dying and many now facing permanent disability. Transplants from living donors are down 85 percent from the same period last year.

And that doesn’t include the skipped cancer screenings, avoided childhood vaccinations, missed biopsies of now undiscovered cancers numbering thousands per week — and countless other serious disorders left undiagnosed.

Lastly, total isolation prevents broad population immunity and prolongs the problem.

We know from decades of medical science that infection causes individuals to generate an immune response (antibodies), and the population later develops immunity. Indeed, that is the main purpose of widespread immunization in other viral diseases: to assist with “herd immunity.”

In the COVID-19 epicenter, Gotham, higher immunity is likely, although undoubtedly muted by the extreme isolation. More than 20 percent of those tested had antibodies. While we don’t know with certainty that antibodies from COVID-19 stop infection, it would be expected, based on decades of virology science, including other coronavirus respiratory bugs, where immunity post-infection is thought to last for a year or more. That’s why scientists are hopeful about using COVID-19 antibodies to treat the sickest patients.

For population immunity, it is great news that half of infected people are asymptomatic and that medical care isn’t even necessary for the vast majority of people. That fact has been incorrectly portrayed as an urgent problem requiring mass isolation.

On the contrary, infected people are the immediately available vehicle for establishing widespread *immunity. By transmitting the *virus to others in lower-risk groups who then generate antibodies, pathways toward the most vulnerable people are blocked, ultimately eradicating the threat.

The curves have been flattened. Now, we must use established medical science and the evidence we have *gathered, and for New York City in particular, limit the enormous harms accumulating from broad isolation and economic lockdown. While New York is unique, strategy should now focus on rigorously protecting the most vulnerable and strictly regulate access to senior-care centers.

Officials must issue rational distancing guidelines to the elderly and their families, including self-isolating the mildly sick. Masks could be required for public transit. We know children and young adults in good health have almost no risk of any serious illness from COVID-19, so logic means opening most schools. With sensible precautions and sanitization standards, most workplaces and businesses should reopen. This would save lives, prevent overcrowding of hospitals, restore vital health care for everyone and allow the socializing essential to generate immunity among those with little risk of serious consequences.

Scott W. Atlas, MD, is the David and Joan Traitel Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and a former chief of neuroradiology at Stanford Medical Center.

 

[The Nature Boy]

Cliff notes captain?

anywhoo, though brad Pitt was just a toot as Tony Fauci on SNL

 

[2fast2slow]

i fully agree with that NY Post article (dont generally like that rag though )

it is time to confront this virus head on. the sooner the heathly and younger 80% of the population can catch it and get over it, the sooner the older and weaker can be freed. We have to do it for them. I would not want to be an old person or a weakend person right now. Lets help them. (of course, we have to do it while not overwhelming the heath care facilities, but if only the young and healthy catch it, we wont)

 

[Mistral]

anywhoo, though brad Pitt was just a toot as Tony Fauci on SNL

It was great, especially considering that Fauci had previously said "Brad Pitt, of course" when asked by a reporter who he'd like to play him on SNL. Brilliant !

 

[CLOUD 500]

2fast2slow
I completely agree with you and that NY article and this is how things occur in nature. Besides we cannot live in fear locked up in our homes for years. Plus the government wants to use this opportunity to install a nanny state. Cannot let that ever happen. Help and protect the vulnerable and let the rest of us live our lives.

 

[EagerBeaver]

Pepcid Being Used to Treat Covid 19 in NYC Hospitals

The strategy of trying whatever is reasonable that might possibly work seems to be what is being followed in New York City:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/27/health/famotidine-coronavirus-northwell-trial/index.html

 

[hungry101]

I don't know Capt'n. I read the article and it sounds compelling but how does he vote in elections? What does Alexander Orcasio Cortez think? "Like! Like!"

Thanks for the great post. Staying on this same path is insane! In my town of 80 thousand, I have inside information from staff. We have had two dead who were both sick people already and there are three others hospitalized and the hospital stands half empty. This is insane!!!

 

[EagerBeaver]

Experts Say Americans Venturing Out Due to "Quarantine Fatigue"

"Quarantine fatigue" has started according to the experts:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...a-a3eb-e9fc93160703_story.html?outputType=amp

I think part of it is also a sense that restrictions are being loosened as the curve begins to flatten. At this point only time will tell whether the trend has any consequences.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Quarantine fatigue. My ass!!!

Fatigued from being quarantined for how long? A month or so??

Remember: Anne Frank remained locked up in a small attic for nearly 2 years. Two years!!! She didn't complain. She spent the time writing a diary. The worse part of course is that the fucking Nazis still got her & murdered her!

 

[The Nature Boy]

They were showing pics of Newport Beach on BBC, gotta admit I was Jelly like Kelly. Wonder how warm water is in SoCal right now?

 

[hungry101]

I meant to reply...don’t know what happened...Anne Frank knew that the Nazis would kill her. About 90 % sure.
For this, I’m starting to think, for what purpose?

 

[bignasty]

For those advocating for an indefinite lockdown to fight the Covid-2 virus, know this: Of all previous viruses from the Coronavirus family there has never been a vaccine found. Even the common cold, which is a coronavirus, has been around for at least 200 years. HIV has been around now for at least 40 years and still infects over 1 million per year globally. Guess what - no vaccine. Luckily, we have powerful antivirals which help those with HIV live with the virus. The effectiveness of the seasonal "flu" vaccine varies from year to year, because the virus is constantly changing. A few years ago it was as low as 35%. WTF. There are many deadly viruses for which no vaccines have been found. For those who like DAO, close your eyes - 400,000 people worldwide die each year from liver cancer and other illnesses caused by Hep-C. Over 70 million people worldwide live with Hep-C.
Ann Frank had family and friends to commiserate with and bring food to her during her lockdown in her safe space. Many of us do not.
If the Canadian lockdown continues through the Summer months I predict there will be riots in the streets.

 

[The Nature Boy]

Lol, oh BigB, ur so silly. Who is advocating an indefinite lockdown? Who, come out, come out where ever you are.....

you need to hit the snooze luv

 

[CLOUD 500]

A description of things in Wuhan after reopening in a post Covid world. Might be a preview of how things will be in the western hemisphere. Things looks very bleak and gloomy -> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/feat...and-constant-anxiety?utm_source=pocket-newtab

 

[OnJustALark]

For those advocating for an indefinite lockdown to fight the Covid-2 virus, know this: ....

Well aid ... and there HAVE been SEVERAL on here "suggesting" at lockdown trough end of year - insanity.

That link to Wuhan info .... might "fly" in Canada but too many conservatives in US who will not allow every day liberties to be stripped over what has amount to as a really bad flu .... facts are facts.

 

[The Nature Boy]

Larry, come on now, who? who has suggested this?

 

[Rinzler]

what has amount to as a really bad flu .... facts are facts.

it's not a bad flu. it's far worse

stop trolling

 

[Rinzler]

Scott W. Atlas, MD, is the David and Joan Traitel Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and a former chief of neuroradiology at Stanford Medical Center.

rather than the hilarious "hypotheses" of a radiologist with no experience in epidemiology or infectious diseases, who writes a hit piece on behalf of the libertarian think thank he works for. here's what good scientific guidance looks like from experts on the subject:

What policy makers need to know about COVID-19 protective immunity

Daniel M Altmann Affiliations: Department of Immunology and Inflammation, Faculty of Medicine, Hammersmith Hospital, Imperial College London, London W12 0NN, UK
Daniel C Douek Affiliations: Vaccine Research Center, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
Rosemary J Boyton Affiliations: Department of Infectious Diseases, Faculty of Medicine, Hammersmith Hospital, Imperial College London, London W12 0NN, UK, Lung Division, Royal Brompton & Harefield NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30985-5/fulltext#

Published:April 27, 2020

Current discussion, for example, addresses the notion that scaled up antibody testing will determine who is immune, thus giving an indication of the extent of herd immunity and confirming who could re-enter the workforce. There are questions to be addressed about the accuracy of tests and practicalities of implementation of laboratory-based versus home-use assays.5 For any country contemplating these issues, another crucial question is how solid is the assumption that antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 spike protein equate to functional protection? Furthermore, if presence of these antibodies is protective, how can it be decided what proportion of the population requires these antibodies to mitigate subsequent waves of cases of COVID-19?

Any discussions should be informed by consideration of correlates of protection. Initially proposed by Stanley Plotkin,6, 7 this concept rests on the notion of empirically defined, quantifiable immune parameters that determine the attainment of protection against a given pathogen. Caution is needed because total measurable antibody is not precisely the same as protective, virus-neutralising antibody. Furthermore, studies in COVID-19 show that 10–20% of symptomatically infected people have little or no detectable antibody.8 In some cases of COVID-19, low virus-binding antibody titres might correlate with lethal or near-lethal infection, or with having had a mild infection with little antigenic stimulation. Importantly, scientists must not only identify correlates of protection but also have a robust understanding of the correlates of progression to severe COVID-19, since knowledge of the latter will inform the former.

The route to certainty on the degree and nature of the immunity required for protection will require evidence from formal proofs using approaches such as titrated transfers of antibodies and T lymphocytes to define protection in non-human primate models, as used, for example, in studies of Ebola virus.9

A study of survivors of SARS showed that about 90% had functional, virus-neutralising antibodies and around 50% had strong T-lymphocyte responses.10 These observations bolster confidence in a simple view that most survivors of severe COVID-19 would be expected to have protective antibodies. A caveat is that most studies, either of SARS survivors or of COVID-19 patients, have focused on people who were hospitalised and had severe, symptomatic disease. Similar data are urgently needed for individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection who have not been hospitalised.

How long is immunity to COVID-19 likely to last? The best estimate comes from the closely related coronaviruses and suggests that, in people who had an antibody response, immunity might wane, but is detectable beyond 1 year after hospitalisation.10, 11, 12 Obviously, longitudinal studies with a duration of just over 1 year are of little reassurance given the possibility that there could be another wave of COVID-19 cases in 3 or 4 years. Specific T-lymphocyte immunity against Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, however, can be detectable for 4 years, considerably longer than antibody responses.13

Some of the uncertainty about COVID-19 protective immunity could be addressed by monitoring the frequency of reinfection with SARS-CoV-2. Anecdotal reports of reinfection from China and South Korea should be regarded with caution because some individuals who seemed to have cleared SARS-CoV-2 infection and tested negative on PCR might nevertheless have harboured persistent virus. Virus sequencing studies will help to resolve this issue and in cases of confirmed reinfection it will be important to understand if reinfection correlates with lower immunity.

Policy briefings in the UK and other countries have rightly emphasised the imperative to collect seroprevalence data.14 This approach has sometimes been construed in a narrow sense as testing that would allow people back to work. However, seroprevalence data can show what proportion of a population has been exposed to and is potentially immune to the virus, and is thus wholly distinct from the snapshot of people who accessed PCR testing. How can one determine how much herd immunity is sufficient to mitigate subsequent substantial outbreaks of COVID-19? This calculation depends on several variables,15 including the calculated basic reproduction number (R0), currently believed to be about 2·2 for SARS-CoV-2.16 On the basis of this estimated R0, the herd immunity calculation suggests that at least 60% of the population would need to have protective immunity, either from natural infection or vaccination.17 This percentage increases if R0 has been underestimated.

Most of the available COVID-19 serology data derive from people who have been hospitalised with severe infection.8, 18 In this group, around 90% develop IgG antibodies within the first 2 weeks of symptomatic infection and this appearance coincides with disappearance of virus,18 supporting a causal relationship between these events. However, a key question concerns antibodies in non-hospitalised individuals who either have milder disease or no symptoms. Anecdotal results from community samples yield estimates of under 10% of tested “controls” developing specific IgG antibodies. We await larger seroprevalence datasets, but it seems likely that natural exposure during this pandemic might, in the short to medium term, not deliver the required level of herd immunity and there will be a substantial need for mass vaccination programmes.

There are more than 100 candidate COVID-19 vaccines in development, with a handful in, or soon to be in, phase 1 trials to assess safety and immunogenicity.4 Candidate vaccines encompass diverse platforms that differ in the potency with which immunity is stimulated, the specific arsenal of immune mediators mobilised, the number of required boosts, durability of protection, and tractability of production and supply chains.3, 4 Safety evaluation of candidate COVID-19 vaccines will need to be of the highest rigour. Some features of the immune response induced by infection, such as high concentrations of tumour necrosis factor and interleukin 6, which could be elicited by some candidate vaccines, have been identified as biomarkers of severe outcome.19

Researchers should be commended for decades of iterative efforts, bringing us to a point where there are many candidate vaccines in development against a novel virus first sequenced in January, 2020. Delivery of efficacious vaccines is not a competitive race to the finish, but a considered evaluation of a safe, potent, global response.4 Few would disagree that science should guide the clinical therapeutic approach to an infected person. Science must also guide policy decisions. Reliance on comprehensive seroprevalence data and a solid, research-based grasp of correlates of protection will allow policy to be guided by secure, evidence-based assumptions on herd immunity, rather than optimistic guesses.