Coronavirus

[Fact Checking]

BTW, here is an interesting example. Is this high enough virality ?

Coronavirus can travel twice as far as official ‘safe distance’, study says

What's your point here?

That was a 4 hours long-distance trip in the winter, likely with windows closed, with no meaningful air circulation. If patient zero was coughing then IMO it's a miracle that only 9 people out of 50 got infected.

Also note the distance marker - this bus was more packed than the graphic is suggesting...

Had he had the flu, he might have infected a similar number of people.

 

[bkp_duke]

For the doctors in this thread. Can you explain bilateral interstitial pneumonia to us? What is the treatment for it? What are the odds of survival ? Also does this normally occur from flu?

Basically, the following:
bilateral = both lungs
interstitial = walls of the air sacs of the lungs (the small airspace called the alveoli where actual oxygen exchange occurs) and the spaces around blood vessels and small airways in the lungs
pneumonia = fluid filled lungs

Basically, the virus appears in some individuals to infect the actual cells responsible for O2 exchanges at the terminal branches of the airways in lungs. This results in an immune response, and like many immune responses things can get "messy" as the immune system brings in other cells to fight the infection, clear out dead or infected materials, etc.

Basically, the virus is infecting the parts of the lung critical for air exchange, and the immune system is causing a fluid filling of the lungs as a byproduct of the immune response (pneumonia). This can be bad because if there is excessive damage, no amount of ventilation (i.e. putting someone on a ventilator to help them breathe) will help - simply because the cells necessary to transfer O2 into the blood and CO2 out are damaged or destroyed, or "under water" and the air cannot get to them.

 

[bkp_duke]

One thing that hit me today... and I wonder if there's any papers on this possibility (should search later)...

There's a relatively new technique for finding invasive species, endangered species, parasites, etc in bodies of water: direct sampling the water for their DNA (environmental DNA analysis). It can tell you if for example a given species of fish exists somewhere in Lake Michigan, even if it's not common enough to be detected by conventional sampling with traps.

I wonder if you could discover "undetected populations" of viruses like COVID-19 by sampling wastewater treatment plants for viral RNA (alongside bacterial DNA)? RNA is even more environmentally stable than DNA, after all. Infected hosts shed viruses like crazy. And many viruses (including COVID-19) are present in fecal matter.

Wastewater treatment plants would make a nice centralized area for environmental DNA and RNA sampling; if a problematic species was found, testing could be focused on the local population to find who is infected.

You likely cannot. The virus is in the wild as a single-stranded mRNA virus (single stranded RNA is LESS stable than double-stranded DNA). It's too "fragile" to survive long enough for that kind of analysis.

You might have luck sampling surfaces directly in endemic areas, but wastewater travels too far, it too turbulent, etc. Anyone that's ever handled RNA in a lab knows how unstable it is. Just vortexing it at the wrong speed shreds it.

 

[MD70]

@Causalien thanks for that. I was aware of this Chinese practise but wasn’t aware it was happening within the EU to such an extent. As far as I know this is not the case in the UK so that might explain why we aren’t in the Italian situation yet.

 

[Nocturnal]

Ireland just cancelled their St. Patrick's day parade and a school system in Atlanta is closing down. :/

 

[MD70]

UK prepares to ask even mildly sick to stay home
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51807781
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51807781
looks like we are moving to the next stage

 

[VValleyEV]

got any online links? I searched and found nothing. nothing on wiki, either, talking about being raised in poverty, etc.

Try watching the 3rd row podcast where he talks about some of the jobs he has had.

 

[Matias]

My wife (emergency physician) says there's no realistic possibility of preventing this coronavirus from becoming a pandemic. With all the quarantines they are just trying to slow the spread in order to manage the number of people needing hospital care at any one time. Also they're hoping either warmer weather or antiviral meds will slow it further.

 

[Singer3000]

As a long term Tesla investor I am sat here contemplating Elon’s words on CV-19 and what lesson if any I should draw from them about my investment.

In the plus column, Tesla just raised about 2 quarters worth of Opex in a well timed raise, so is seemingly well prepped for the recession.

In the negative column, the CEO seems to take a far more complacent view on this crisis to almost every senior epidemiologist I’ve seen speak on the subject, which:
a) worries me that Tesla didn’t raise enough,
b) reminds me that Elon is well capable of hubris - if he turns out to be wrong about this despite all the professional advice and on the ground reports, what other decisions is he making against sound advice that will turn out to be bad for the company?

A very confusing time to be a Tesla investor.

 

[linux-works]

wondering if there are any DIY approaches toward making a vent, since I am guessing the real vents are going to be in very short supply.

ideas?

(I once had pneumonia for several months; it was pure hell. I wish that on no one.)

 

[KarenRei]

Interesting - I didn't see the other replies when I saw Musk's tweets & replies page.

But what Musk is tweeting is still dumb & without proper context. He talks about "virality of covid is overstated". But what is the virality he is looking at ? Fatality rate is overstated (in US, for eg) - but what is the real rate ? Is it high enough to warrant "panic" or not ?

Musk doesn't have anymore data than we do.

BTW, here is an interesting example. Is this high enough virality ?

Coronavirus can travel twice as far as official ‘safe distance’, study says

This is an example of the sort of thing I hate. People take an extreme anecdote - sometimes one that's been peer-reviewed, sometimes not even that - and then try to present the extreme anecdotes as being "normal and characteristic of the disease". Asymotomatic transfer? Yes, it can happen, no it's not normal and characteristic. Spread by toilet aerosols (fecal-oral route)? Yes, it could happen, no it's not normal and characteristic. Relapse? Yes it can happen; no it's not normal and characteristic. Infected by a contaminated surface a week after it was contaminated? Yes, it could happen; no, it's not normal and characteristic. Infected twice? Theoretically possible, not normal and characteristic, and probably never happened in the first place. On and on.

Yes, it's "possible" to be infected from 5 meters away. No, that's not normal and characteristic.

And this is the sort of stuff that's been bothering Musk too, and I fully, 100% sympathize.

And back to the initial question: you don't turn to armchair epidemologists with a pocket calculator when discussing the CFR; you consult WHO and the CDC. And most recently they've been pointing at a CFR of about 0,7% outside of Wuhan, give or take. Musk was absolutely right to call out that sort of stupidity.

 

[Tiger]

One would assume the Chinese have a cure for their lab-developed pandemia: https://www.quora.com/How-did-the-Wuhan-coronavirus-appear

Oh, and here it is: CEO of company claiming to have coronavirus vaccine says they are moving on to phase one of testing

Any volunteers?

 

[KarenRei]

You likely cannot. The virus is in the wild as a single-stranded mRNA virus (single stranded RNA is LESS stable than double-stranded DNA). It's too "fragile" to survive long enough for that kind of analysis.

Ugh, correct. For some reason I thinking that one of the justifications of the RNA world abiogenesis hypothesis was greater stability of it over DNA. I was recalling this incorrectly.

 

[azaz]

This is an example of the sort of thing I hate. People take an extreme anecdote - sometimes one that's been peer-reviewed, sometimes not even that - and then try to present the extreme anecdotes as being "normal and characteristic of the disease". Asymotomatic transfer? Yes, it can happen, no it's not normal and characteristic. Spread by toilet aerosols (fecal-oral route)? Yes, it could happen, no it's not normal and characteristic. Relapse? Yes it can happen; no it's not normal and characteristic. Infected by a contaminated surface a week after it was contaminated? Yes, it could happen; no, it's not normal and characteristic. Infected twice? Theoretically possible, not normal and characteristic, and probably never happened in the first place. On and on.

Yes, it's "possible" to be infected from 5 meters away. No, that's not normal and characteristic.

And this is the sort of stuff that's been bothering Musk too, and I fully, 100% sympathize.

And back to the initial question: you don't turn to armchair epidemologists with a pocket calculator when discussing the CFR; you consult WHO and the CDC. And most recently they've been pointing at a CFR of about 0,7% outside of Wuhan, give or take. Musk was absolutely right to call out that sort of stupidity.

no, you and Musk are both wrong because you are conflating average people taking stuff out of context and professionals saying the US is woefully unprepared. that if we don't flatten the curve our HC system will collapse. the second is not "dumb".

 

[Matias]

And back to the initial question: you don't turn to armchair epidemologists with a pocket calculator when discussing the CFR; you consult WHO and the CDC. And most recently they've been pointing at a CFR of about 0,7% outside of Wuhan, give or take. Musk was absolutely right to call out that sort of stupidity.

0,7% would still be high number. And the problem is also health care systems capacity. CFR was higher in Wuhan probably, because capacity was saturated. That’s because it is important to stretch the curve, although area under the curve would stay the same

 

[EVNow]

What's your point here?

Exactly.

What is Musk's point ? When he says "Virality of C19 is overstated" what exactly is he talking about ?

"Keep extrapolating & virus will exceed mass of known universe!" - This is some serious intelligent stuff ?

Seriously guys - we are literally holding people who post here to a higher standard than Musk with ~32M followers.

 

[Doggydogworld]

Actual epidemiologist Adam Kucharski not showing proper deference to Musk:
Adam Kucharski on Twitter

Former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb is doing good work on Face the Nation, CNBC, etc. Straight talk without alarmism. Links to many clips and other info in his Twitter feed. One good point he makes is we leave a lot of control up to the individual states. This is good since our federal government has screwed the pooch (not his exact words, ha), but bad because no state wants to be the first to commit economic suicide unless DC is willing to provide assistance.

Gottlieb also indicates CFR is around 1%. He says Korean 0.7% rate will rise due to the time it takes the disease to progress. He also differentiates between CFR and IFR, which I found useful.

 

[dl003]

no, you and Musk are both wrong because you are conflating average people taking stuff out of context and professionals saying the US is woefully unprepared. that if we don't flatten the curve our HC system will collapse. the second is not "dumb".

Here's the problem: at every level, health officials and hospitals are ramping up testing as much as possible. That's good. That's people doing their job and not panicking. However, headlines like "healthcare system will collapse" don't do anything but add to the panic. Tell me what hospital administrator will read CNN and say "crap, looks like we're unprepared". We all get the memo coming down; no need to yell the sky is falling. That's the panic he's talking about. That CNBC piece saying that 3.4% is the rate is one prime example.

 

[azaz]

Here's the problem: at every level, health officials and hospitals are ramping up testing as much as possible. That's good. That's people doing their job and not panicking. However, headlines like "healthcare system will collapse" don't do anything but add to the panic. Tell me what hospital administrator will read CNN and say "crap, looks like we're unprepared". We all get the memo coming down; no need to yell the sky is falling. That's the panic he's talking about. That CNBC piece saying that 3.4% is the rate is one prime example.

it is demonstrably false that "we all get the memo coming down". testing is not being ramped up the way it should. as of yesterday the NY gov had to make a public plea for the CDC to allow a private lab here on Long Island to test. the "panic" is so people get ready for potentially large scale shutdowns to help flatten the curve. that is what the epidemiologists are talking about. frankly this is my last response on the subject because I don't understand how people are missing the point so bad.

 

[Matias]

Exactly.

What is Musk's point ? When he says "Virality of C19 is overstated" what exactly is he talking about ?

"Keep extrapolating & virus will exceed mass of known universe!" - This is some serious intelligent stuff ?

Seriously guys - we are literally holding people who post her.

Actual epidemiologist Adam Kucharski not showing proper deference to Musk:
Adam Kucharski on Twitter
.

I’m waiting for Musk to propose a “Fantastic voyage” like submarine but with nanoscale to fight this virus