U.K. to tell 1.5 million people with serious health problems to self-quarantine for next 12 weeks

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
 
Archived version.

Saw this, nice encapsulation:

 

Feeling confused as to why Coronavirus is a bigger deal than Seasonal flu? Here it is in a nutshell. I hope this helps. Feel free to share this to others who don’t understand...

It has to do with RNA sequencing.... I.e. genetics.

Seasonal flu is an “all human virus”. The DNA/RNA chains that make up the virus are recognized by the human immune system. This means that your body has some immunity to it before it comes around each year... you get immunity two ways...through exposure to a virus, or by getting a flu shot.

Novel viruses, come from animals.... the WHO tracks novel viruses in animals, (sometimes for years watching for mutations). Usually these viruses only transfer from animal to animal (pigs in the case of H1N1) (birds in the case of the Spanish flu). But once, one of these animal viruses mutates, and starts to transfer from animals to humans... then it’s a problem, Why? Because we have no natural or acquired immunity.. the RNA sequencing of the genes inside the virus isn’t human, and the human immune system doesn’t recognize it so, we can’t fight it off.

Now.... sometimes, the mutation only allows transfer from animal to human, for years it’s only transmission is from an infected animal to a human before it finally mutates so that it can now transfer human to human... once that happens..we have a new contagion phase. And depending on the fashion of this new mutation, thats what decides how contagious, or how deadly it’s gonna be..

H1N1 was deadly....but it did not mutate in a way that was as deadly as the Spanish flu. It’s RNA was slower to mutate and it attacked its host differently, too.

Fast forward.

Now, here comes this Coronavirus... it existed in animals only, for nobody knows how long...but one day, at an animal market, in Wuhan China, in December 2019, it mutated and made the jump from animal to people. At first, only animals could give it to a person... But here is the scary part.... in just TWO WEEKS it mutated again and gained the ability to jump from human to human. Scientists call this quick ability, “slippery”
This Coronavirus, not being in any form a “human” virus (whereas we would all have some natural or acquired immunity). Took off like a rocket. And this was because, Humans have no known immunity...doctors have no known medicines for it.
And it just so happens that this particular mutated animal virus, changed itself in such a way the way that it causes great damage to human lungs even "mild" cases.

That’s why Coronavirus is different from seasonal flu, or H1N1 or any other type of influenza.... this one is slippery AF. And it’s a lung eater...And, it’s already mutated AGAIN, so that we now have two strains to deal with, strain s, and strain L....which makes it twice as hard to develop a vaccine.

We really have no tools in our shed, with this. History has shown that fast and immediate closings of public places has helped in the past pandemics. Philadelphia and Baltimore were reluctant to close events in 1918 and they were the hardest hit in the US during the Spanish Flu.

Factoid: Henry VIII stayed in his room and allowed no one near him, till the Black Plague passed...(honestly...I understand him so much better now). Just like us, he had no tools in his shed, except social isolation...

And let me end by saying....right now it’s hitting older folks harder... but this genome is so slippery...if it mutates again (and it will). Who is to say, what it will do next.

Be smart folks... acting like you’re unafraid is so not sexy right now.

 R_P wrote: 
That's paywalled, but I am familiar with the Imperial College report that got heavily criticised.  

The way I see it, the big issue is keeping the crisis within the parameters of what the various health systems can deal with. Draconian social distancing measures seem to have worked in Wuhan and noticeably Hong Kong and Singapore also exhibit much lower curves than other countries. 

This by all accounts is the only way to go at the moment, or our systems are going to get totally overwhelmed.

However, Wuhan gives me cause for optimism that, with enough rigour, the number of cases can be kept to a manageable level.  In this scenario, when the health system is still in a position to cope, I think you could start a program of controlled infections in the sections of the population that are at very low risk, i.e. age <54 and no pre-exisitng conditions.

Admittedly, this won't be enough to create full herd immunity, but it must surely help the overall health of the population and lower transmission rates further down the track, which is after all what this is all about.

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
 
It's gonna be a mighty big (first) wave that overwhelms and that makes your projection pointless (at least in the near term). See different models of "control" to get through now. Larger exposure = larger problems. Still a massive strain.

And then scale it from one country to how various countries are going to be affected in turn at an earlier or later stage.

I don't think either of you (RP and Kurtster) have understood me properly. 

@  Richard.. sure herd immunity is complicated. you need a high number of the population to have been exposed to the virus and survived. Normally this comes from either exposure or a vaccine. But there is no vaccine for the coronavirus. Sure, one might be developed but the virus is developing swiftly and there is no guarantee that a new vaccine will work in time anyway.. ergo.. herd immunity is only going to come with sufficient exposure in the population.. this might take time.. but it will come by itself, no matter what we do. 
@ Kurt.. 
Lock down is absolutely the right strategy at the moment to avoid the available resources being overstretched. I do not dispute that, and have been in self-isolation for three weeks already and have enough stores to keep that going for another six weeks at least. That is not the issue.

What I am talking about is developing some kind of herd immunity after the first wave has passed but before the second (or even third) wave hits. Look at the numbers:

This first preliminary description of outcomes among patients with COVID-19 in the United States indicates that fatality was highest in persons aged ≥85, ranging from 10% to 27%, followed by 3% to 11% among persons aged 65–84 years, 1% to 3% among persons aged 55-64 years, <1% among persons aged 20–54 years, and no fatalities among persons aged ≤19 years.

This means that from the statistics we have at the moment (which are still evolving as the virus spreads) there is a less than 1% chance of everyone under the age of 54 years dying from it. Now there are couple of things to consider here: That number does not consider the individuals with preconditions in that age group. If you eliminate them from the statistical population that <1% chance of fatality will drop dramatically. Secondly, it is widely acknowledged that the current statistical population only consists of known and confirmed corona cases. It doesn't include all those who got it, had mild symptoms and got over it without being tested. Some sources say that the statistical population could be out by an entire order of magnitude. 

So if you consider these two factors, you could get the risk of a fatality from a controlled population down to (at a rough guess)  0.01% or even lower. That is 1 in 10000 or possibly even lower. This is the sort of risk level that many people accept in daily life anyway (driving, paragliding, surfing, chatting on political forums) etc, 

Think of the benefits and think of the alternatives.

Doing this program will not overstretch resources if you do it when the first wave of the pandemic has passed. At 1 in 10000 fatalities, you are talking of 100 in a population of a million (and, to allow for those who get seriously ill, multiply that number by 10 and you need 1000 hospital beds for 1 million people.. rotate that every 3 to 4 weeks and you could actually get a sizeable portion of the population with some basic resistance over a matter of months (and I expect we don't have much time between the first and second wave). Moreover, you can do it in a  controlled, secure manner to avoid spreading the disease. (This is basically what we are all learning to do anyway during the lock-down)
100 in a million dying might sound dire, but it is a hell of a lot better than the current prospect.  Once herd immunity is in place, societies will be in a much better place to handle any outbreak

The alternative to developing herd immunity is being in permanent lock-down until a vaccine is developed with a massive strain on health resources with very little control of how things develop.

 KarmaKarma wrote:

Why this article is BS - by a researcher in biology information

 btw, medium took the article down

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
 
" the chance of fit and able-bodied people needing intensive care is definitely not zero, I agree,"


I'd be surprised if the variations of virulence of infection for a group of people can be uniformly predicted. You're going to have healthy and fit people become seriously ill and die and weaker people show no symptoms. That paradoxical variation may not be understood for a long time. IIRC the Spanish Flu of 1918 disproportionately killed healthy people because their immune systems responded more vigorously and somehow made the virus deadlier. 

It's better to wait until a vaccine is developed that will safely immunize the vast majority of people. 

New blood tests for antibodies could show true scale of coronavirus pandemic

Meanwhile, the adults crunch the numbers and arrive at some very interesting info.


Evidence over hysteria — COVID-19
https://medium.com/six-four-six-nine/evidence-over-hysteria-covid-19-1b767def5894

More from that author:
https://twitter.com/aginnt

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 
i clearly understand.  you want to infect yourself on purpose, for the greater good of us all.  Your survival will provide us all with antibodies that will then in turn save the rest of us. 

You will then have to isolate yourself from everyone and everything.  Be totally alone for at least 14 days.  Can you be sure that you can isolate yourself before you infect someone else before you make it to quarantine ?  You wouldn't want to force anyone to join you in your plan, now would you ?  You will either live or die.  right ?  You will not ask to be rescued if your experiment goes wrong, right ?  Can you be so sure that you will not change your mind and decide to be rescued if your plan does not work ?  I guess that no one depends on you for anything.  You have no pets.  You are 100% independent and self sufficient and do not need anyone for anything.  

Go for it.  Hope you make it.  The world will be in your debt.

edit:  or you are so hopelessly bored and just plain trolling for conversation based upon your patently absurd plan to save the world.  I will conclude the latter and no longer take you seriously on this subject.

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:

Herd immunity is (more) complicated, and generally achieved through vaccines. Herd immunity also creates evolutionary pressure on viruses to produce different strains. And more hosts = more variety.

btw.. me and my mates had our first Skype party. was actually really cool.

 kurtster wrote: 
huh?  you haven't understood at all.. how can I possible infect others when I am in managed quarantine? 

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 
I see you as being cowardly and selfish, unwilling to sacrifice for the greater good of us all.

So go ahead, infect yourself and as many others as you can.  You can be the Typhoid Mary of the 21st Century.

 kurtster wrote: 
sorry .. haven't convinced me.. given that we are all very likely to get it sooner or later (it is after all very contagious) .. the chance of fit and able-bodied people needing intensive care is definitely not zero, I agree, but the more people in the population who gain some kind of resistance (immunity I have heard, is not on the cards) benefits everyone. 

I readily admit, this needs to be managed, which is almost certainly not going to be an option anymore as the existing resources are going to be overstretched whatever method (suppression or postponement) are applied. And there will be a number of sub-60 year old non-risk people who die.. but the sad fact is, they probably will anyway.  I know this sounds callous, but for me personally, I would take the risk. It is after all very likely to come anyway. I am not playing hero. Just facing it as it is.

and self-isolation is anyway the standard. That doesn't change.
 

 R_P wrote: 
You do know that "normal" is just a spelling word ... 

 kurtster wrote:
 
I guess you're back to "normal."

 R_P wrote: 
So glad to know what your priorities are right now. 

Sorry puberty didn't work out for you.  If you can't grow them you can always eat them I guess.