The One Covid-19 Science and Medicine Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
casebro said:
Dogs can sniff this and that, but anybody know of any dog that can sniff any virus?
Click to expand...

Colorado State University has been working for a number of years on training rats, ferrets, and dogs to sniff out birds (and bird feces) with avian flu. But the bad news is they have been working on it since 2014. And the last thing I can find is that they were going to do a field test in Idaho in December 2019. No breaking news of any great success. So it doesn't seem like it is progressing too well. But there isn't much information.
 
marting said:
Interesting. So what he believes is that the polio vaccine activates a general, non-specific, immune response and that would be effective to some degree against COVID-19. That fits in with the idea that kids are more frequently exposed to all sorts of virus and would also have a more generally active immune system. Could be. Certainly worth trying.
Click to expand...
I seem to remember someone say the same about Hydroxychloroquine.
What do you have to lose?
 
marting said:
I doubt polio vaccines would have much impact on kids resistance to COVID-19 but kids do get a lot of colds and some percentage are coronavirus. I used to get colds all the time when I was a kid and got fewer as I got older. Probably been at least 10 years since I've had anything. Could be a bit of higher resistance from that I suppose. I vaguely remember seeing something indicating children are less likely to be infected from adults in family units but don't recall where I ran across it.
Click to expand...

I feel sure I recall a mention in an article/paper that the human coronaviruses which make up a percentage of the common cold could possibly provide some immunity to Covid19. I do really wish I'd bookmarked the article. The only reference I can find so far as to one corona virus providing immunity from another is this https://www.research.ed.ac.uk/porta...virus_OC43_and_NL63_infections_in_infants.pdf.
This suggests that Hcov OC43 can provide some protection from Hcov HKU1, both of which are betacoronaviruses - as is Covid19
 
Lplus said:
I feel sure I recall a mention in an article/paper that the human coronaviruses which make up a percentage of the common cold could possibly provide some immunity to Covid19. I do really wish I'd bookmarked the article. The only reference I can find so far as to one corona virus providing immunity from another is this https://www.research.ed.ac.uk/porta...virus_OC43_and_NL63_infections_in_infants.pdf.
This suggests that Hcov OC43 can provide some protection from Hcov HKU1, both of which are betacoronaviruses - as is Covid19
Click to expand...

Given pretty well everyone will have had common cold coronavirus infections, observation would provide empirical evidence the degree of protection is poor.
 
Planigale said:
Given pretty well everyone will have had common cold coronavirus infections, observation would provide empirical evidence the degree of protection is poor.
Click to expand...

Most common colds are not coronaviruses and even fewer may be the betacorona viruses, so I don't think you can necessarily make that correlation. After all, if they did provide some sort of protection the recipients would be amongst those not previously or presently infected - which I suspect is still a majority of the population....
 
There is cross-neutralisation activity by MERS and SARS antibody against SARS-COV-2. So, there might be protection afforded by exposure to those viruses
 
Capsid said:
There is cross-neutralisation activity by MERS and SARS antibody against SARS-COV-2. So, there might be protection afforded by exposure to those viruses
Click to expand...
Would that suggest that any vaccines produced for SARS or MERS could also have an effect?
 
arthwollipot said:
By the way, if you want a more granular discussion of COVID-19, the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe Forum has a whole subforum with threads discussing a variety of aspects of the disease, including economics, politics, humour, etc. If you're not already a member, you ought to be able to find the answer to the security question with a small amount of research. :) If not, just PM me. If you listen to the show, you should already know the answer.

Listen to the show. It's good.
Click to expand...

I fell about 10 episodes behind, and I’m trying to catch up in reverse order.

That puts a different perspective to their evolution on the topic as it went from a handful of cases to where it is now.

And let me congratulate them for not falling into the “All coronavirus all the time” trap that much of the mainstream media has fallen victim to. Yes, it’s a huge story, but it’s not the only story.
 
Dr.Sid said:
Could be. Sadly there is none.
Click to expand...

There is a possibility the USA has one for SARS; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome

And there have been clinical trials for a MERS virus ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East_respiratory_syndrome

However given the low incidence of MERS and the disappearance of SARS it seems they haven't been developed at any speed.

See also https://www.drugtargetreview.com/ne...date-could-hold-promise-for-covid-19-vaccine/

Still - no magic bullet for sure.
 
Planigale said:
Darat said:
First dog on the moon on contact tracing apps


https://www.theguardian.com/comment...the-information-technology-wobbegong-explains
Click to expand...

Whilst I feel solidarity with all fellow marsupials I don't follow why beekeepers are important?
...the government will have to satisfy privacy boffins and apiarists...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


In the cartoon it was spelled "appiarists".

I suspect that wasn't by accident.

Is there a joke here?
Click to expand...


Yes.
 
First U.S. case earlier than anybody thought:
A person who died at home in Santa Clara County on Feb. 6 was infected with the coronavirus at the time of death, a stunning discovery that makes that individual the first recorded COVID-19 fatality in the United States, according to autopsy results released by public health officials late Tuesday.

That death — three weeks before the first fatality was reported in the U.S., in Washington state on Feb. 28 — adds to increasing evidence that the virus was in the country far earlier than once thought.
Click to expand...
https://www.sfchronicle.com/health/...-S-coronavirus-death-occurred-on-15217316.php
 
So, turns out over 4% of Los Angeles has already had coronavirus. On April 5, according to the Los Angeles Times, there were only 8,400 cases of coronavirus in LA County. But now we know the number was actually 410,000. That means that they were reporting an infection rate nearly 50 times lower than the actual infection rate. Which means, based on the reported deaths, that the fatality rate is 0.15%. And as we know, the standard fatality rate for the flu is cited as being between 0.1% and 0.2%.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/21/health/coronavirus-antibodies-california.html

The fact that nearly 5% of Los Angelenos have already had the virus, and that we now know it was already spreading throughout California in January (reported today that the first 2 California deaths occurred in early February based on autopsies) really calls into question the utility and necessity or effectiveness of the lockdowns.

And these figures indicate the death rate really is approximately that of a standard flu.
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
French to test nicotine patches on Covid-19 sufferers since smokers seem to be resistant to the virus. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-smokers-at-lower-risk-of-getting-coronavirus
Click to expand...

Given the relatively high rates of smoking in France, Spain and Italy compared with the UK just think how much worse things could have been there if smoking cessation campaigns had been more effective!

My guess is if smoking is negatively associated with mortality from covid-19 (it is politically unacceptable to say smoking is protective), then it will be the other chemicals. If it is nicotine alone the we should see vaping as being effective. Most of the changes in the lung are attributable to non-nicotine chemicals in smoke, which are what cause a pro-inflammatory state in the lungs with an activated immune system which I suppose might have been poised to deal with the virus.

The data from China didn't particularly identify smoking as a risk factor either positively or negatively. Given that being male is a strong risk factor perhaps I can propose an RCT of castration to see if this is protective?
 
Doghouse Reilly said:
So, turns out over 4% of Los Angeles has already had coronavirus. On April 5, according to the Los Angeles Times, there were only 8,400 cases of coronavirus in LA County. But now we know the number was actually 410,000. That means that they were reporting an infection rate nearly 50 times lower than the actual infection rate. Which means, based on the reported deaths, that the fatality rate is 0.15%. And as we know, the standard fatality rate for the flu is cited as being between 0.1% and 0.2%.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/21/health/coronavirus-antibodies-california.html

The fact that nearly 5% of Los Angelenos have already had the virus, and that we now know it was already spreading throughout California in January (reported today that the first 2 California deaths occurred in early February based on autopsies) really calls into question the utility and necessity or effectiveness of the lockdowns.

And these figures indicate the death rate really is approximately that of a standard flu.
Click to expand...

On the other hand it means 95% haven't been infected, even assuming herd immunity kicks in at 50% that means that without some sort of control measure you have only had 10% of the infections and deaths so far. The issue has always been that unlike seasonal flu for which a vaccine exists, and pre-existing immunity exists, 100% of the population are susceptible to infection with SARS-CoV-2, so even with the same IFR total deaths will be around ten times greater.
 
Doghouse Reilly said:
So, turns out over 4% of Los Angeles has already had coronavirus. On April 5, according to the Los Angeles Times, there were only 8,400 cases of coronavirus in LA County. But now we know the number was actually 410,000. That means that they were reporting an infection rate nearly 50 times lower than the actual infection rate. Which means, based on the reported deaths, that the fatality rate is 0.15%. And as we know, the standard fatality rate for the flu is cited as being between 0.1% and 0.2%.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/21/health/coronavirus-antibodies-california.html

The fact that nearly 5% of Los Angelenos have already had the virus, and that we now know it was already spreading throughout California in January (reported today that the first 2 California deaths occurred in early February based on autopsies) really calls into question the utility and necessity or effectiveness of the lockdowns.

And these figures indicate the death rate really is approximately that of a standard flu.
Click to expand...

My uncle who died last saturday from Covid will be happy to hear that. :rolleyes:
 
Planigale said:
On the other hand it means 95% haven't been infected, even assuming herd immunity kicks in at 50% that means that without some sort of control measure you have only had 10% of the infections and deaths so far. The issue has always been that unlike seasonal flu for which a vaccine exists, and pre-existing immunity exists, 100% of the population are susceptible to infection with SARS-CoV-2, so even with the same IFR total deaths will be around ten times greater.
Click to expand...

That is potentially true, but still means that this is far, far less than it was made out to be. It means we'd max out at 10k deaths in California, roughly, assuming 50% infection rate.
 
Last edited:
RedStapler said:
My uncle who died last saturday from Covid will be happy to hear that. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Sorry to hear about your loss, genuinely, but arguments from emotion aren't effective. We know that some people die from this, that has never been in dispute. It's the same as if you'd said "The 1000 people in California who have died will be happy to hear that." It simply doesn't change the point.

Rolley eyes at genuinely compelling and relevant statistics is dumb, in a thread devoted to the discussion thereof.
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
Cue panic buying. Give it a week and you won't be able to buy Nicorettes for love or money.
Click to expand...
Everyone had better understand that nicotine is highly addictive.

"The pandemic is over but now I can't stop my need for this nicotine stuff."
 
Doghouse Reilly said:
Sorry to hear about your loss, genuinely, but arguments from emotion aren't effective. We know that some people die from this, that has never been in dispute. It's the same as if you'd said "The 1000 people in California who have died will be happy to hear that." It simply doesn't change the point.

Rolley eyes at genuinely compelling and relevant statistics is dumb, in a thread devoted to the discussion thereof.
Click to expand...

You would sing a whole other tune if someone close to you was involved, but whatever..
"REOPEN EVERYTHING GUYS, IT'S JUST LIKE THE FLU, THINK ABOUT THE PRECIOUS ECONOMY" sounds way better for you, I guess. :rolleyes:

Good luck.
 
Planigale, I enjoy reading your posts and I find them informative. But please use caution with professional acronyms. You just used "RCT" and "IFR" of which I am clueless.

This thread (and others) has a large lay audience. Please do not make this subject inaccessible or difficult for us.
 
Planigale said:
Given the relatively high rates of smoking in France, Spain and Italy compared with the UK just think how much worse things could have been there if smoking cessation campaigns had been more effective!

My guess is if smoking is negatively associated with mortality from covid-19 (it is politically unacceptable to say smoking is protective), then it will be the other chemicals. If it is nicotine alone the we should see vaping as being effective. Most of the changes in the lung are attributable to non-nicotine chemicals in smoke, which are what cause a pro-inflammatory state in the lungs with an activated immune system which I suppose might have been poised to deal with the virus.

The data from China didn't particularly identify smoking as a risk factor either positively or negatively. Given that being male is a strong risk factor perhaps I can propose an RCT of castration to see if this is protective?
Click to expand...

I think I'm gonna pass on castration to reduce the risk of coronavirus, thank you.
 
William Parcher said:
Planigale, I enjoy reading your posts and I find them informative. But please use caution with professional acronyms. You just used "RCT" and "IFR" of which I am clueless.

This thread (and others) has a large lay audience. Please do not make this subject inaccessible or difficult for us.
Click to expand...

Apologies. My Bad.

RCT = randomised controlled trial. In terms of castration to blind subject as to their status all participants would have their testicles removed but the control 50% would have them reimplanted in the abdomen where they would be impalpable but still functional (from a hormonal aspect).

IFR = Infection fatality rate. Number infected who die. In general covid-19 death rates are CFR case fatality rates which only includes the symptomatic cases not the total infected as denominator.
 
Last edited:
Doghouse Reilly said:
That is potentially true, but still means that this is far, far less than it was made out to be. It means we'd max out at 10k deaths in California, roughly, assuming 50% infection rate.
Click to expand...

So, the hospitals in New York collapsing is just normal every flu season ? Damn US, do something.
Your arguments have several flaws. First you take current death as corresponding to current people infected. They are not. Lot of people now infected will die in next month, and you are not included them. Also just as many people are indeed not registered as 'infected', lot of dead will also not register. And IMHO it does not really matter if they died directly from the virus or just could get the care needed because of health care overload. We will only know how many deaths can we attribute to the virus when it's all over and when we count all deaths above average. 0.1-0.2 for flu is actually value estimated based on anomaly in death rate.
And there is yet another factor .. the current death rate is with all measures in place, unlike flu.

Btw. how do you evaluate your chance for winning the bet now ?
 
CORed said:
I think I'm gonna pass on castration to reduce the risk of coronavirus, thank you.
Click to expand...

More realistically one could do a real world 'experiment', as castration is a treatment for prostate cancer one could look and see if prostate cancer patients with actual or chemical castration were protected. On the other hand the sisterhood is looking for any excuse...
 
Doghouse Reilly said:
So, turns out over 4% of Los Angeles has already had coronavirus. On April 5, according to the Los Angeles Times, there were only 8,400 cases of coronavirus in LA County. But now we know the number was actually 410,000. That means that they were reporting an infection rate nearly 50 times lower than the actual infection rate. Which means, based on the reported deaths, that the fatality rate is 0.15%. And as we know, the standard fatality rate for the flu is cited as being between 0.1% and 0.2%.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/21/health/coronavirus-antibodies-california.html

The fact that nearly 5% of Los Angelenos have already had the virus, and that we now know it was already spreading throughout California in January (reported today that the first 2 California deaths occurred in early February based on autopsies) really calls into question the utility and necessity or effectiveness of the lockdowns.
Click to expand...

One wonders what you think could justify it.

Why do you think it calls it into question?
 
Planigale said:
Apologies. My Bad.

RCT = randomised controlled trial. In terms of castration to blind subject as to their status all participants would have their testicles removed but the control 50% would have them reimplanted in the abdomen where they would be impalpable but still functional (from a hormonal aspect).

IFR = Infection fatality rate. Number infected who die. In general covid-19 death rates are CFR case fatality rates which only includes the symptomatic cases not the total infected as denominator.
Click to expand...
Thanks.
 
Doghouse Reilly said:
So, turns out over 4% of Los Angeles has already had coronavirus. On April 5, according to the Los Angeles Times, there were only 8,400 cases of coronavirus in LA County. But now we know the number was actually 410,000. That means that they were reporting an infection rate nearly 50 times lower than the actual infection rate. Which means, based on the reported deaths, that the fatality rate is 0.15%. And as we know, the standard fatality rate for the flu is cited as being between 0.1% and 0.2%.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/21/health/coronavirus-antibodies-california.html

The fact that nearly 5% of Los Angelenos have already had the virus, and that we now know it was already spreading throughout California in January (reported today that the first 2 California deaths occurred in early February based on autopsies) really calls into question the utility and necessity or effectiveness of the lockdowns.

And these figures indicate the death rate really is approximately that of a standard flu.
Click to expand...

1) I can't tell where your conclusion that as many people have been infected as would have been without mitigation steps comes from.
2) A 0.15% fatality rate combined with a 60% infection rate for herd immunity would result in about 300,000 deaths in the US (which would make for a REALLY bad flu year). That's assuming that an increase in infections would not have resulted in a higher fatality rate due to a strain on medical resources.
3) Given that California has the 6th youngest population of any state in the US, it would be expected to have a lower fatality rate than the US as a whole. And the median age of people in Los Angeles is even less than the median age of California. For New York to have this fatality rate would require 2/3 of the population to have already been infected.
4) Given that California has the 4th lowest per capita number of tests in the US, the undercount in California is likely substantially greater than the US as a whole.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
Why do you think it calls it into question?
Click to expand...

I'm not DR, but I think it's at least a good question to ask. How long should the lockdown go, and to what extent? No-one knows the answer to these questions, or even comes close, even though many pretend to. We can surmise what things will look like in 3 months with lockdowns maintained as they are now, with lockdowns completely removed starting this instant, or any combination of those. Then we'd have to decide how to measure which of the hypothetical approaches was better and which was worse.

There is a certain type of moral posturing that people like to engage in where they accuse those wanting a re-opening of aspects of the economy as 'valuing money more than lives' or some such...but it's really just that - moral posturing.

ETA: This probably shouldn't be in the science thread, but I was responding to comments here. It'd be nice to have another somewhat civil thread about the policy issues surrounding the pandemic, but you know how that would go.
 
Last edited:
Doghouse Reilly said:
That is potentially true, but still means that this is far, far less than it was made out to be. It means we'd max out at 10k deaths in California, roughly, assuming 50% infection rate.
Click to expand...

Did you mean10k deaths in L A county? I get a curretn 5% have had covid with 600 deaths. a 50% infection rate would be 10x, 10x the death rate = 6,000 deaths. x6 to get to California's 36M, so 36K Covid deaths in California. Which has somewhere around 280,000 annually now. So probaly worse than the flu, but enough for respiratory illness to bump cancer out of 3rd place.
 
sir drinks-a-lot said:
I'm not DR, but I think it's at least a good question to ask. How long should the lockdown go, and to what extent? No-one knows the answer to these questions, or even comes close, even though many pretend to. We can surmise what things will look like in 3 months with lockdowns maintained as they are now, with lockdowns completely removed starting this instant, or any combination of those. then we'd have to decide how to measure which of the hypothetical approaches was better and which was worse.

There is a certain type of moral posturing that people like to engage in where they accuse those wanting a re-opening of aspects of the economy as 'valuing money more than lives' or some such...but it's really just that - moral posturing.

ETA: This probably shouldn't be in the science thread, but I was responding to comments here. It'd be nice to have another somewhat civil thread about the policy issues surrounding the pandemic, but you know how that would go.
Click to expand...

There are clearly conflicting issues that come into play. But from the public health aspect one wants the severe lock down to continue long enough for the number of cases to be low enough that one can contact trace and isolate each case. The lock down can then be eased, but social distancing needs to continue. So no concerts, bars, pubs. Restaurants and shops could reopen but with significant distancing measures in place. Limited numbers of people in at any one time. Schools could go back. I think it would be weeks (2 - 4) to ease the lock down but months (3 - 6) until things can go back to normal.
 
Dr.Sid said:
So, the hospitals in New York collapsing is just normal every flu season ? Damn US, do something.
Your arguments have several flaws. First you take current death as corresponding to current people infected. They are not. Lot of people now infected will die in next month, and you are not included them. Also just as many people are indeed not registered as 'infected', lot of dead will also not register. And IMHO it does not really matter if they died directly from the virus or just could get the care needed because of health care overload. We will only know how many deaths can we attribute to the virus when it's all over and when we count all deaths above average. 0.1-0.2 for flu is actually value estimated based on anomaly in death rate.
And there is yet another factor .. the current death rate is with all measures in place, unlike flu.

Btw. how do you evaluate your chance for winning the bet now ?
Click to expand...

Please cite ypur source for NY hospitals "collapsing". As far as I know, nothing of the sort is happening.

I don't believe the current death rate is due to the measures in place, because Sweden has a lower death rate than the UK, with minimal measures implemented. Additionally, the virus was spreading UNCHECKED for a minimum of 2 MONTHS in California before lockdowns ever began. Do you not realize the significance of that? At that point, the cat is well out of the bag, and it would be very hard to argue that lockdowns could do anything appreciable. Which is why, in the end, we'll see that Sweden was right, and that all of this was unnecessary and harmful.

As for the bet, I give myself a 90% chance of winning.
 
Last edited:
casebro said:
Did you mean10k deaths in L A county? I get a curretn 5% have had covid with 600 deaths. a 50% infection rate would be 10x, 10x the death rate = 6,000 deaths. x6 to get to California's 36M, so 36K Covid deaths in California. Which has somewhere around 280,000 annually now. So probaly worse than the flu, but enough for respiratory illness to bump cancer out of 3rd place.
Click to expand...

I meant 10k statewide. I understand your figures but I don't think the varying population density would allow a full 50% across the entire state before herd immunity was reached.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom