News COVID-19 pandemic

[N_Molson]

herd immunity cannot be achieved until more than 82%

Sadly, scientists seem increasingly cautious about the ability of the human body to provide an adequate immune reaction. It doesn't look good at all, maybe herd immunity can't be achieved at all (like with the HIV). That thing sure is a bad critter.

 

[fort]

It seems that in all the conditions caused by SARS cov-2 ( targeting the eyes, the skin, the lungs, the heart, the intestine, the throat, the brain cells ... taste smell, muscles, myalgia ) comes a biological entity, a receptor called AT1, which is, in a way, the gateway to the virus in the body. I regret not being a biologist, neurobiologist can also be, to better understand this functioning but listening yesterday to an infectious disease specialist describe this and discuss what would be a way to inhibit this receptor in the presence of the virus to stem it, I got the impression that there was a very interesting track there ( I mean: she presented this research in an entirely interesting way ) .And even if I know that hundreds of laboratories are currently working in many others directions to curb this pandemic. As regards the field of cardiology:
.
https://academic.oup.com/cardiovascres/article/doi/10.1093/cvr/cvaa096/5821240

To be continued

Another solution: create "volunteer battalions for the Covid-19", which we would put, in rotation, in "contact" with SARS, say per fortnight of days, well monitored by medicine, until the 60, 70, 80% of the world population is reached (and cured I hope). Another solution: listen to the valor of Lady Gaga (*) at 06:05:43 (video Together At Home) who - you I don't know - but I have always cured me of all illnesses ( at least of the heart and soul ).


Here:

Together At Home Special to Celebrate COVID-19 Workers
[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87-ZFjLfBAQ&feature=emb_logo"]One World: Together At Home Special to Celebrate COVID-19 Workers - YouTube[/ame]

Note:
Finally and in all respects for making masks, forget about coffee filters, vacuum cleaner bags and other nonsense (even if these are easily accessible products). Polypropylene 30/60 g/m2 (gsm) is more suitable. But an old foul foulard ...maybe also.

Note2:
Is there no button to thank yourself?

(*) ...who is still a very strange being, it must be said.

 

[Linguofreak]

Sadly, scientists seem increasingly cautious about the ability of the human body to provide an adequate immune reaction. It doesn't look good at all, maybe herd immunity can't be achieved at all (like with the HIV). That thing sure is a bad critter.

The body has to be able to provide an adequate immune reaction, or nobody would ever recover. The question as far as herd immunity goes is how fast new strains appear with different antigens than the previously infected have immunity to. If that happens very, very quickly, then the best solution is to unflatten the curve by giving everybody an active-virus vaccination including the strains circulating in their area. It will guarantee that everyone gets infected all at once, so the death rate among vulnerable groups will skyrocket, but it should be dead easy to develop (as you won't be trying to determine which parts of the virus produce an immune reaction, just dumping the whole thing into everybody's blood stream), and it's the best shot in the worst case scenario of producing herd immunity quickly.

Let's hope it doesn't come to that.

---------- Post added at 02:27 ---------- Previous post was at 02:19 ----------

The CDC published an estimated R0 of 5.7, which indicates that herd immunity cannot be achieved until more than 82% of the population is immunized through infection or vaccination.


https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-0282_article

Keep in mind, though, that if there are a large number of contagious, asymptomatic infections, estimates of R0 will tend to be higher than reality, and thus the herd immunity threshold will be lower.

---------- Post added at 02:37 ---------- Previous post was at 02:27 ----------

For example, if the R0 calculated from known infections is 5.7, but there are on average 4.3 generations of infections between known infections, the actual R0 would be 1.5, with a herd immunity threshold of only 33%.

 

[Thorsten]

Is there any amount of economic losses that would justify loss of life?

Short answer, yes - since someone needs to pay for the health system and there will occur deaths from all sorts of causes without a healthcare system, eventually there is a point where an economic loss creates more death via that avenue, at which point we would probably conclude that it's a bad idea to continue that way.

Longer answer - also yes - healthcare works like on a logarithm - you could always treat more people better (and hence save lifes) by increasing the amount of money that's available (faster emergency response times, more hospitals with more specialized units, free regular checkups,...). It isn't done, because there's a fixed amount of money available (dependent on how the system works, it's determined by that person's insurance or roughly the same for everyone in the country) - that amount is sort of agreed within the society - people could for instance vote for paying higher tax to have better healthcare - but usually they do not. So each society has implicit limits beyond which point a potentially life-saving treatment is no longer considered economically viable - and these people generally die - which is accepted.

For instance - what amount of increase of your personal tax load would you feel is okay if - throughout the country - one more life every year could be saved if everyone paid that tax increase? Or would you really give away all yoru money and ask everyone else to do likewise if one person more could be saved?

 

[Urwumpe]

For instance - what amount of increase of your personal tax load would you feel is okay if - throughout the country - one more life every year could be saved if everyone paid that tax increase? Or would you really give away all yoru money and ask everyone else to do likewise if one person more could be saved?

Well, since we are often talking about a cost of mere 10000€ for a special life-saving treatment, it wouldn't be that much more for a single person. Even a million for this single person wouldn't be that much for a country.



But then we get into the dilemma of choosing which person to save? And then we usually get into some sort of triage: We pick a fixed budget. And try to save as many as possible with this budget.



Still we can say, if we double this budget, we can save n more people. If we double it again, the increase will be smaller, but we can save more.



But if we increase the expenses it beyond a point, our economy will collapse and our budgets will have to shrink - and we start saving less people.



BUT, and I think that point is important: It is a difference, if we just are not able to save more, because we could not sustain this for a long period of time and would start saving less in the long run. And actively deciding to kill a few people with a stupid decision.



The virus does not respect economics. The old people die first, but without intensive care, young people will die rapidly too and that will be a much harder hit to the economy than a few days more of restrictions. Even with intensive care, young people will eventually die in hospital - it just takes longer, that is why they appear in the statistics of the pandemic later. Even in Italy, it is not the end yet.



And should the theory hold water, that the similarity of the virus with HIV means that a herd immunity is impossible, failing to contain the virus with hard actions now will mean economic collapse later.

 

[Thorsten]

The virus does not respect economics. The old people die first, but without intensive care, young people will die rapidly too and that will be a much harder hit to the economy than a few days more of restrictions.

Well, that is an argument based on economics rather than the infinite value of a single life.

Still we can say, if we double this budget, we can save n more people. If we double it again, the increase will be smaller, but we can save more.

The point is that we don't do that - read the news of the past years, it's all about cutting healthcare costs, not about increasing the budget.

Even with intensive care, young people will eventually die in hospital - it just takes longer, that is why they appear in the statistics of the pandemic later. Even in Italy, it is not the end yet.

There's no reason to believe that - the numbers don't support that at all.

First, the chance of a young person to die from the Coronavirus based on Wuhan data is 0.2% once the infection has been diagnosed. There's by now multiple independent evidence (antibody studies, speed of the initial spread, the situation on the USS Theodore Roosevelt) to suggest that most infections never even lead to symptoms and that hence the actual number of people infected but never tested is (dependent on country,the following for China and Germany) a factor 10 higher. So the most likely chance of a young person to die is 0.02% - which is on the order of a seasonal flu - which we generally accept as a risk of life.

The average age of people who die in Germany is 85 years (!), the median age of people who are tested in Italy is 74 years, so the figures from Italy predominantly cover the older part of the population, it's overwhelmingly likely that there's many more young people infected there who never got tested.

If you have 100.000 infections detected and a true number of about a milllion, 0.02% means you expect also 200 young people to die - so there's definitely also these cases visible - but they are rare.

And should the theory hold water, that the similarity of the virus with HIV means that a herd immunity is impossible, failing to contain the virus with hard actions now will mean economic collapse later.

Sorry - what theory? There's plenty of well-documented recoveries from Corona (i.e. with no detectable virus left in the former patient) - whereas there no single case where this has ever happened with HIV - even the few cases who were never treated and never got sick from AIDS had developed a co-existence with HIV.

It's not the same virus and definitely not the same situation. Most people's immune systems deal just fine with the Coronavirus, that's evident all over the place. It just spreads much faster than the seasonal flu, which is why it manages to infect more people and drive the numbers up more rapidly.

 

[Linguofreak]

And should the theory hold water, that the similarity of the virus with HIV means that a herd immunity is impossible, failing to contain the virus with hard actions now will mean economic collapse later.

It holds no water at all. It's complete bunk. The two viruses are only extremely distantly related, if at all. Coronaviruses are *not* retroviruses like HIV is. Retroviruses reverse-transcribe their RNA genome into DNA and insert that into the host genome, whereas coronaviruses belong to a group where the viral genome (after replication) is directly used for protein synthesis, without any reverse transcription into DNA. HIV has a capsid inside the viral envelope that contains its genome, coronaviruses have no capsid around the genome.

Aside from the structural and lifecycle differences and belonging to different families, herd immunity to HIV is impossible because individual immunity is impossible because the virus knocks back the immune system, which indeed eliminates all existing immunities to other diseases, and no HIV infection ever clears without medical intervention, if at all. But we know that coronavirus infections eventually do clear on their own, and I have heard nothing about the virus causing any type of immunocompromise.

---------- Post added at 10:01 ---------- Previous post was at 09:35 ----------

even the few cases who were never treated and never got sick from AIDS had developed a co-existence with HIV.

Given that retroviruses integrate themselves into the genome of host cells, there's a good chance that the continued existence of HIV in cases that do not progress to AIDS when left untreated does not indicate that an immunity hasn't formed: just that latent infections in cells are continuing to go active and produce the virus.

 

[Urwumpe]

...I have heard nothing about the virus causing any type of immunocompromise.

Two thirds of the confirmed COVID-19 patients have a Leukopenia. A massive leukopenia is even considered an early symptom for the severe development of COVID-19.



The virus is also using comparable proteins for docking to T-cells as HIV does, its infection characteristics are closer to HIV than to the older SARS for those cells.



https://www.nature.com/articles/s41423-020-0424-9


While it does not reproduce within T-cells like HIV does (and does not seem rely on retrovirus abilities to stay dormant for years in the human host), it has a very aggressive behavior towards T-cells, making it much harder for humans to maintain immunity and in many cases, the virus passively fights off the human immune system to allow a massive reproduction without immune system response. That is likely why many infections with the virus are asymptomatic: When a T-cell notices the virus, there is a high chance that the virus infects it and kills it, before it can report its detection to the other cells of the immune system.

 

[N_Molson]

A french virologist, Luc Montagnier (2008 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine) said on TV he found with the help of a mathematician friend HIV genetic material "inserted" in the Covid-19 DNA, strongly suggesting the virus was the result of experimental genetic engineering.

He was however quickly debunked by the scientific community.

 

[richfororbit]

The point about Mr Paul's view is that the longer the continued economic shut down goes on, it will create other indirect health problems and so on. By October the shut down will of been long enough.

The liberty report has another clips. Federal reserve measures are bound to fail.

[ame]https://youtu.be/LuLYNNd-o9c?t=35[/ame]

 

[Notebook]

Summary
Germany starts to reopen smaller shops after deciding the outbreak is coming under control

The Czech Republic allows some markets and other small businesses to restart

The UK is to try to use the blood of survivors to treat patients

Three beaches in Sydney re-open as New South Wales records just six new cases

Despite falling cases, Australia still has strict "lockdown" rules

New York's governor says cases there are "slowing, not growing"

The number of deaths in the US now exceeds 41,000

There are more than 2.4m infections worldwide, with more than 165,000 deaths

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-52349779

 

[Urwumpe]

Wacken is still cancelled.

 

[fort]

He's a pretty sick guy, so he decides to go to the hospital.

After a battery of tests, the doctor said to him:

- I have bad news for you ... You have the coronavirus.

The guy collapsed:

- Oh my God, and what can you do ?

- Unfortunately, not much. You will have to stay isolated in the hospital and you will be prescribed a diet based on pancakes, sole, slices of sausage and pizza.

- And how is all this going to cure me?

- I don't know, but in any case these are foods that one can easily slide under the door.

 

[Frilock]

CDC’s failed coronavirus tests were tainted with coronavirus, feds confirm

 

[Buck Rogers]

Scientists Are Tired of Explaining Why The COVID-19 Virus Was Not Made in a Lab

"By comparing the available genome sequence data for known coronavirus strains, we can firmly determine that SARS-CoV-2 originated through natural processes," one of the researchers, Scripps Research immunologist Kristian Andersen, said at the time.

"Two features of the virus, the mutations in the RBD portion of the spike protein and its distinct backbone, rules out laboratory manipulation as a potential origin for SARS-CoV-2."

Although it is clear the virus was not created in the lab, there have been ongoing concerns it may have 'escaped' a research facility, with most of the speculation - understandably - focussed on the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). However, it remains just speculation. The Washington Post recently reported that US embassy officials had safety concerns about the lab back in 2018, and the institute did keep a closely related bat virus - but even that's far from a smoking gun.

As always it may be a long time (if ever) before all the details of this crisis are known.

 

[Notebook]

The price of US oil has turned negative for the first time in history.
That means oil producers are paying buyers to take the commodity off their hands over fears that storage capacity could run out in May.
Demand for oil has all but dried up as lockdowns across the world have kept people inside.
As a result, oil firms have resorted to renting tankers to store the surplus supply and that has forced the price of US oil into negative territory.
The price of a barrel of West Texas Intermediate (WTI), the benchmark for US oil, fell as low as minus $37.63 a barrel.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52350082

 

[jedidia]

That means oil producers are paying buyers to take the commodity off their hands over fears that storage capacity could run out in May.

That's kind of surprising, though I guess it shouldn't be. I'm used to hearing amercians stockpiling gas as soon as it looks like there might be a crisis, but I guess people can only stockpile so much, and then the distinct lack of demand over 2 months hits quite heavily.

 

[Notebook]

Storing oils shouldn't be a problem. Just dig a big hole in the ground...

 

[jangofett287]

Note that this is WTI futures for may which close at the end of tomorrow (Tuesday), meaning anyone left holding one of these contracts is obliged to take physical delivery of 1000 barrels per contract.
Two more things you should know; firstly "1000 barrels" is a volume, you need to supply the storage and secondly most of the people trying to sell are speculators with no actual storage capacity.
Popcorn anyone?

 

[richfororbit]