Coronavirus thread

[Holden]

There has been a wealth of informed and informative reporting on the virus over the last year. i don't know why you'd say there hasn't been. Does "misinformation" mean to you anything that doesn't mirror your view that its no worse than the flu and all a big overreaction? All the questions you asked in your previous post have been extensively examined and answered in the reporting.

Merely two cases in managed isolation is something to celebrate not mock, and is something that right now many countries can only dream of and would take as a godsend. And is the fragile result of the vigilant around the clock work of a great many professionals, and easily undermined if taken as indifferently or frivolously as you are.

This is where I would have to disagree unless we are taking our 'news' from totally different sources. I don't include the anything speculative as 'informed' and there is plenty of speculative stuff about that appears to have little basis in actual fact.

Does "misinformation" mean to you anything that doesn't mirror your view that its no worse than the flu and all a big overreaction?

Is a perfectly good example of what I am talking about. You've read what I've written and then incorrectly assumed/speculated that I've taken a particular stance when I have done no such thing.

[Holden]

don't know if I posted it already, but one interesting thing that came from winter being in the middle of the year down here:

Covid-19: 'Near extinction' of influenza in NZ due to lockdown - epidemiologist

"Mask wearing and social distancing for Covid-19 has all but cut influenza cases in New Zealand this year, with only six flu isolates detected in this country from April to August.

Public health physician and epidemiologist Professor Michael Baker offered RNZ National's Sunday Morning programme his analysis on the flu season numbers and why masks continue to be so important.

He said there has been "near extinction of influenza in New Zealand following our very effective Covid-19 response", as numbers vanished from the two standard systems for surveillance - resulting in a 99.8 percent reduction in flu cases.

According to Baker, there were usually 1600 more deaths in winter, compared to other seasons, and around a third of those were caused by influenza, mostly in older people with long-term health conditions."[...]


same story in The Lancet:

Reduced mortality in New Zealand during the COVID-19 pandemic

Another factor in the reduced influenza figures has to be the fact that the northern hemisphere goes through their 'flu season about six months before Australia and NZ. The flu tends to be brought ashore with overseas visitors and as there have been very few of those this year it stands to reason that the flu hasn't had a chance to arrive. Another plus of course is that we get the benefit of any vaccines that they've developed for whatever mutation of the flu that has occurred.

[SimonNZ]

This is where I would have to disagree unless we are taking our 'news' from totally different sources. I don't include the anything speculative as 'informed' and there is plenty of speculative stuff about that appears to have little basis in actual fact.

Does "misinformation" mean to you anything that doesn't mirror your view that its no worse than the flu and all a big overreaction?

Is a perfectly good example of what I am talking about. You've read what I've written and then incorrectly assumed/speculated that I've taken a particular stance when I have done no such thing.

It should be clear from the links throughout this thread where people are getting their news from, and most I think have proven sober and reliable. If they are "speculative" then its because the health experts they quote can only speculate or give their best assessments and predictions based on unfolding and developing events.

Where do you get your news from? Apart from government sites which news reporting would you prefer we cite?

And I framed this: "Does "misinformation" mean to you anything that doesn't mirror your view that its no worse than the flu and all a big overreaction?" as a question not a statement, and I actually was wanting an answer.

[MusicTurner]

For example, it took me literally 10 seconds of googling to find this about who was hit by Corona in the UK, a report from mid-2020.
Obviously more research will result in further information & details, depending on one's focus. Tons of it from DK, for example - not that all sorts of data exist yet, though.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2020/jun/11/who-does-coronavirus-kill-in-england-and-wales-visualising-the-data

[Pohjolas Daughter]

The Mysterious Link Between COVID-19 and Sleep
The coronavirus can cause insomnia and long-term changes in our nervous systems. But sleep could also be a key to ending the pandemic.

Interesting article Simon.

Must admit, I immediately wondered whether it was the taking of the melatonin that can make a difference or if it was just a matter of getting a good night's sleep.  Mind you, if one is feeling stressed out and not sleeping well, then yes, I would think that taking melatonin would help.  Wasn't happy to read that if one contracted Covid-19 that it could possibly disrupt ones capacity to sleep well--and who knows for how long?  I do appreciate the suggestions to get into a regular routine...get outside....knock off the computer/smart phones, etc. at least an hour before going to bed, etc.

PD

[Pohjolas Daughter]

Thanks for suggestions, P. As often the case yesterday turned out better then expected. We had a 3.5 kg turkey roll (bird would have been difficult) on order from local butchers. After cutting off a third for Christmas dinner and cold boxing day the rest is residing in the freezer. I was tempted to break the rules but glad I didn't. Cold, but a lovely day, we enjoyed a long walk, had zoom with the family and watched three episodes of "The King's Gambit" in the evening. So, quiet but nice. Trust you had an enjoyable day too.

Oh, nice!  Glad that it worked out o.k. in the end!  What was your turkey roll filled with?

Quiet day here but o.k. (pouring rain so no walks...was actually concerned about flooding).  Glad that I bothered to put up Christmas decorations as it helps things to feel a bit cheerier/hopeful around here.  A friend was kind enough to cut down a tree for me (had fun wading through over a foot of snow and wiping away around the bases of a few trees in order to look at them better), so as long as I water it regularly, it should last for several weeks.  Much cheaper too. $30 or $35 for a nice tree vs. double that last year at a greenhouse.  That tree, though bushier, shed needles right away!  Must have been cut ages ago!

Merry, merry!

PD

[MusicTurner]

Took my first test before Christmas, on the 23rd, the main stadium here in the capital being transformed into a quick-test center for up to 80 people simultaneously.

They put a stick deep into your nostrils for maybe 15 seconds, not particularly pleasant.

You get the answer (negative) within 30 minutes, via SMS. No other waiting, free, and very smooth. Accuracy is still debated though, between 60-90 %, apparently better if you just got infected.

Elsewhere, there's another, 95% accurate test with slower procedures. And an antibodies-test, in both cases where the results come after a couple days - and for the last-mentioned, you'll have to pay.

[krummholz]

Took my first test before Christmas, on the 23rd, the main stadium here in the capital being transformed into a quick-test center for up to 80 people simultaneously.

They put a stick deep into your nostrils for maybe 15 seconds, not particularly pleasant.

You get the answer (negative) within 30 minutes, via SMS. No other waiting, free, and very smooth. Accuracy is still debated though, between 60-90 %, apparently better if you just got infected.

Elsewhere, there's another, 95% accurate test with slower procedures. And an antibodies-test, in both cases where the results come after a couple days - and for the last-mentioned, you'll have to pay.

I'm curious about the effect of the sampling technique on test accuracy. Here at the university, our testing has been self-administered under supervision, five circles in each nostril with a Q-tip. The samples are sent to a Massachusetts laboratory called Broad, and analyzed via PCR. The results come in 24 to 48 hours. I had an influenza test last February using the deep nasal probe sampling technique (positive for Type A despite receiving the flu vaccine!), but the only COVID tests I've had have been using the self-administered technique just described.

PCR is said to be something like 95% sensitive for SARS-CoV-2, but surely that can only be measured on samples that are known to contain the virus. If the virus is missed because it wasn't in the outer nasal passages, then the false negative can't be blamed on the analysis procedure. I've never seen any data on whether the virus in an infected person is likelier to be found deeper inside, or whether it is just as likely to be found closer to the exterior, and to what extent the answer depends on time following exposure.

[MusicTurner]

Obviously, they turn the stick etc.; I didn't register the exact proceedings, concentrating on pressing my eyelids firmly together in order to think of something else than the unpleasantness, but what you're telling about the test seems quite likely to be the case here too, except I'm quite sure it was only in one nostril... 

The quick tests were introduced to take some of the pressure from the free, better tests that became overbooked, and to provide easy tests. One isn't recommended to go there and take the quick tests, if one has symptoms of infection.

[André]

It lasts just a few seconds, maybe 5-7, but it's quite unpleasant and the feeling is that it's much longer 

[MusicTurner]

I strongly object to that suggested time frame in my case ! Also had to breathe during the process.

[Mandryka]

Obviously, they turn the stick etc.; I didn't register the exact proceedings, concentrating on pressing my eyelids firmly together in order to think of something else than the unpleasantness, but what you're telling about the test seems quite likely to be the case here too, except I'm quite sure it was only in one nostril... 

The quick tests were introduced to take some of the pressure from the free, better tests that became overbooked, and to provide easy tests. One isn't recommended to go there and take the quick tests, if one has symptoms of infection.

I can't work out why anyone has the quick tests if they're asymptomatic.

If they get a negative they are no better off than before the test -- they don't know whether they are infected and contagious.

And if they get a positive they still don't know whether they are contagious. The link between the test fining a bit of old COVID RNA up your schnozzle and you actually being someone who infects people is, as far as I can see, totally obscure.

Given that, in the UK, getting a positive has legal consequences which are quite onerous -- self isolation -- I don't know if it makes any sense at all to volunteer!

[MusicTurner]

I can't work out why anyone has the quick tests if they're asymptomatic.

If they get a negative they are no better off than before the test -- they don't know whether they are infected and contagious.

And if they get a positive they still don't know whether they are contagious. The link between the test fining a bit of old COVID RNA up your schnozzle and you actually being someone who infects people is, as far as I can see, totally obscure.

Given that, in the UK, getting a positive has legal consequences which are quite onerous -- self isolation -- I don't know if it makes any sense at all to volunteer!

Since you ask, because of visiting the family (we were 8 people, less than 10 has been recommended) during Christmas. Included vulnerable people.
That someone would visit anyone if getting a positive result goes beyond me, everyone here would consider it outrageously wrong and too much of a risk.

[Mandryka]

Since you ask, because of visiting the family (8 people, less than has been 10 recommended) during Christmas. Included vulnerable people.
That someone would visit anyone if getting a positive result goes beyond me, everyone here would consider it outrageously wrong and too much of a risk.

What I want to say is this. If you get a positive result and you don't have symptoms you don't know if you are contagious. Neither, as far as I can see, do you know if you are significantly more likely to be contagious than if you had a negative result. And if you get a negative result you may still be contagious.

In short, the rationality of the decision about whether or not it's right to visit someone doesn't depend at all on the result of the test. I know this sounds paradoxical, because these things are presented as "tests" -- but that's the way it is, unless I've missed something important (and I hope I have!)

[MusicTurner]

What I want to say is this. If you get a positive result and you don't have symptoms you don't know if you are contagious. Neither, as far as I can see, do you know if you are significantly more likely to be contagious than if you had a negative result. And if you get a negative result you may still be contagious.

In short, the rationality of the decision about whether or not it's right to visit someone doesn't depend at all on the result of the test. I know this sounds paradoxical, because these things are presented as "tests" -- but that's the way it is, unless I've missed something important (and I hope I have!)

As said, people agree that the percentage of correctness in the test is higher than the percentage of wrongness, between 60 and 90 % correctness, best if just being infected. Plus it's a gesture of consideration towards one's family, compared to not getting one and thus having bigger risk of being unknowingly sick.

EDIT: BTW, self-isolation, even on a vague basis, wouldn't be a major problem for me right now.

[Mandryka]

Plus it's a gesture of consideration towards one's family, compared to not getting one and thus having bigger risk of being unknowingly sick.

That I fully understand.

[Pohjolas Daughter]

I'm curious about the effect of the sampling technique on test accuracy. Here at the university, our testing has been self-administered under supervision, five circles in each nostril with a Q-tip. The samples are sent to a Massachusetts laboratory called Broad, and analyzed via PCR. The results come in 24 to 48 hours. I had an influenza test last February using the deep nasal probe sampling technique (positive for Type A despite receiving the flu vaccine!), but the only COVID tests I've had have been using the self-administered technique just described.

PCR is said to be something like 95% sensitive for SARS-CoV-2, but surely that can only be measured on samples that are known to contain the virus. If the virus is missed because it wasn't in the outer nasal passages, then the false negative can't be blamed on the analysis procedure. I've never seen any data on whether the virus in an infected person is likelier to be found deeper inside, or whether it is just as likely to be found closer to the exterior, and to what extent the answer depends on time following exposure.

Hi Krummholz,

From what I understand, one can still get the flu after being vaccinated (even if it's for that strain), but hopefully the effects will be less severe.  This is from the CDC's website:

What protection does a flu vaccine provide if I do get sick with flu?

"Some people who get vaccinated may still get sick. However, flu vaccination has been shown in some studies to reduce severity of illness in people who get vaccinated but still get sick. A 2017 study showed that flu vaccination reduced deaths, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, ICU length of stay, and overall duration of hospitalization among hospitalized adults with flu. Another study in 2018 showed that a vaccinated adult who was hospitalized with flu was 59 percent less likely to be admitted to the ICU than someone who had not been vaccinated. Among adults in the ICU with flu, vaccinated patients on average spent 4 fewer days in the hospital than those who were not vaccinated."

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/prevent/keyfacts.htm

PD

[geralmar]

The suffering here is profound.


Detroit Free Press, 12/27/20.

[Karl Henning]

People with coronavirus are still getting on planes. No one knows how many.

I don't see myself boarding a plane anytime soon.

[krummholz]

I can't work out why anyone has the quick tests if they're asymptomatic.

If they get a negative they are no better off than before the test -- they don't know whether they are infected and contagious.

And if they get a positive they still don't know whether they are contagious. The link between the test fining a bit of old COVID RNA up your schnozzle and you actually being someone who infects people is, as far as I can see, totally obscure.

Given that, in the UK, getting a positive has legal consequences which are quite onerous -- self isolation -- I don't know if it makes any sense at all to volunteer!

For us (university professors) it's mandatory during the semester when students are on campus. Same goes for all employees. And yes, a positive would lead to mandatory self-isolation... a GOOD thing I would say, since I certainly wouldn't want to be responsible for helping to spread the virus!!