The new Coronovirus, Covid-19 and its spread globally

  • Thread starter Thread starter OurLadyofSorrows
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It is really hard not knowing what is going to happen in relation to this virus and our lives. Especially after reading that there is a resurgence of people being reinfected after having healed. What do you think the best possible outcome will be? and the worst ??
 
Swiftdove said:
It is really hard not knowing what is going to happen in relation to this virus and our lives. Especially after reading that there is a resurgence of people being reinfected after having healed. What do you think the best possible outcome will be? and the worst ??
Click to expand...
Best case: a vaccine is available soon
Worst case: many more people die

You aren’t alone wondering.

I am also wondering about price increases or decreases that others maybe experiencing. Shortages? Where approximately are you located.

Northeast USA meat prices are up and egg purchases are restricted
 
Last edited:
Yeah, but with an available vaccine… it would, what, reduce symptoms? and likelihood of being infected?

Ohio here,
haven’t noticed prices up yet, but all key items are limited purchase and have been for 3 weeks.
 
We are kind of writing this as we go. Think of it as we are on the cutting edge , the sharp edge, of pandemic history and mitigation of virology.
Each day practically, new discoveries about this virus are being reported.
 
Swiftdove said:
Ohio here,
haven’t noticed prices up yet, but all key items are limited purchase and have been for 3 weeks.
Click to expand...
Luckily in NY, almost everything is evening out in regards to supply. Only large packs of TP are hard to come by.
 
There has been no sign of toilet paper around here. Lol not even the smallest pack in the smallest store :confused:
 
I know better, but I still get impatient.
especially because my children are with their dad for 2 months, and we haven’t came to an agreement on less transferring them back and forth when its time to come home.
it’s personal, ya know.
 
Anrakyr said:
It has a medical name already. Using anything else is political hyperbole.
Click to expand...
I understand that there are some lawsuits filed in Texas against insurance companies.
The client took out pandemic insurance and the insurance is not paying out now because the disease is not named.
 
vz71 said:
I understand that there are some lawsuits filed in Texas against insurance companies.
The client took out pandemic insurance and the insurance is not paying out now because the disease is not named.
Click to expand...
So because the mean little man from Incredibles won’t respect coverage the virus doesn’t have a name?
 
While I’ve heard of the stories about people testing negative then positive at a later date, I’ve also heard that it may be due to the test they use having a 15% false negative rate…meaning that the test falsely shows a negative result in 15% of those tested.

What I’m not seeing is…if these really are cases of a true negative then true positive result, are they also showing signs of being ill again?
 
OurLadyofSorrows said:
We are kind of writing this as we go. Think of it as we are on the cutting edge , the sharp edge, of pandemic history and mitigation of virology.
Each day practically, new discoveries about this virus are being reported.
Click to expand...
I keep thinking that we’re fortunate in a way that we’re learning all of this on a pandemic that is not nearly as deadly as some past pandemics have been. This one is bad enough, don’t get me wrong, but it shows we weren’t ready for the Big One. This could have been so much worse.

This one is targeting people who are older far more heavily than anyone else. That isn’t the way the 1918 pandemic was, the one that killed the President’s grandfather at the age of only 49 in about the space of a day.

The best guess is that the 1918 flu had a mortality rate in 30 year olds of about 6-8%. Twenty-year olds and 40 year olds were in the 2-3% range. That took a very big swath out of the middle of the working population. (It never ceases to amaze me that this event doesn’t rate higher in the history books than it does. Disease doesn’t get the play in history books that it ought to get…)

The nation went through that pandemic at a time when they didn’t know what a virus was. There is still clear data that physical distancing did lower the mortality rate and the heights the pandemic reached, and doing it sooner rather than later made a big difference.
 
Last edited:
Pattylt said:
While I’ve heard of the stories about people testing negative then positive at a later date, I’ve also heard that it may be due to the test they use having a 15% false negative rate…meaning that the test falsely shows a negative result in 15% of those tested.

What I’m not seeing is…if these really are cases of a true negative then true positive result, are they also showing signs of being ill again?
Click to expand...
The FDA has eased requirements on the manufacturers of tests, which makes it a bit of the Wild West out there. That is the trade-off that is needed to get tests to market quickly. Every test for infection or immune status will yield a certain number of false positives and false negatives. That’s just the nature of the beast. There was never going to be perfect testing, no matter what.

In other words, we can’t know the answer to your very important question quite yet. We may never know how many people died from COVID-19, either directly or indirectly, either. The health departments aren’t running tests on everybody who dies. Even if they did, they can’t always know if someone who was never examined by a doctor died of the infection or if the infection was only a contributing cause of death or if the person died of something else and only with a totally asymptomatic infection.

They can look at the year-over-year death toll from the vantage point of some years from now and have some idea of how much deaths somehow related to respiratory symptoms went up. I think that’s the best we’ll get.
 
Last edited:
PetraG said:
There was never going to be perfect testing, no matter what
Click to expand...
This is very true and every test developed will have stated false neg/pos percentages. One factor that is very important is the effect of a false reading. HIV is a good example…a false positive can have enormous ramifications on a person…thinking they are HIV positive when they are not…which is why they confirm all positives with an alternate test. False negatives obviously can have severe ramifications as well. The standard is usually a minimum od the 95th percentile and many tests can be 99% for one or the other. So, I was a bit surprised when I read that one of the tests was at 85%. Any test with that low of a false neg should be verified with at least a second test ar an alternative…we don’t have that many tests available yet so it’s a bit of a quandary.

That’s why I’m very skeptical regarding these pos/neg/pos patients that don’t tell us if the patient was retested again or if they appear to have symptoms. It seems to be creating a big concern where there shouldn’t be one…or a big concern because it is a big one! Sometimes half information is worse than none at all! If I had CV19 and then test negative, I think it may be appropriate to at least repeat the test on a second sample and test again. Especially if our results start to matter in returning to work or gathering with loved ones.

These tests were really rushed to market and we need to remember that. Refinements will be made to improve the accuracy and we should do all that we can now until that happens.
 
Pattylt said:
That’s why I’m very skeptical regarding these pos/neg/pos patients that don’t tell us if the patient was retested again or if they appear to have symptoms.
Click to expand...
The numbers coming out of Iceland, where (from what I understand) they are testing a big swath of the population for the sake of epidemiology rather than just diagnosing the complaint of a sick patient or running down the contacts of infected persons, give the impression that somewhere around half of infected persons never show symptoms. (Iceland has done enough tests to cover about 1/10th of its population at some point; a little under 1.6% of those tests were positive. In contrast,

Now, it is the nature of the the symptoms of the coronavirus that someone with symptoms will be throwing off more virus than someone who isn’t, because the coughing comes from the success of the virus in setting up shop in the respiratory system. Having said that, we need to all consider ourselves to be possibly infected. Any of us could be Typhoid Mary this time around. It would seem from China that younger people in an infected family are particularly likely to show no symptoms at all, but anybody could be infected and asymptomatic. The ideal is that we stay home and our bodies fight off the infection before we give it to anyone else. That is the way to extinguish an outbreak: that is, at some point, no one who has it comes into contact with a person who has no immunity yet and the virus stops replicating itself and dies out.

This seems to have been accomplished with SARS (for which no cases have been reported since 2014) but not MERS (which has a reservoir in Middle Eastern dromedaries and possibly camels). We have to hope that it is possible that COVID-19 can be extinguished in the human population, as difficult as that is going to be considering how widespread it has become. Otherwise, we’ll be dealing with a potentially fatal endemic disease that can be spread by community contact. I don’t see how we get out of that until we have a vaccine and the public health infrastructure to quickly track outbreaks.
 
Last edited:
I repeat:
Anrakyr said:
So because the mean little man from Incredibles won’t respect coverage the virus doesn’t have a name?
Click to expand...
Please respond to the point. Your links that ists happening has no bearing on the point.
 
None here either, or face masks, or sanitiser, or a lot of other basics. Hoarding.
 
OurLadyofSorrows said:
None here either, or face masks, or sanitiser, or a lot of other basics. Hoarding.
Click to expand...
Not just “I need three super-sized packages and not just one because we might use 108 rolls in a month” hoarding, either! There are stores who have reported people who bought tremendous amounts of these things–as in, hundreds of containers of sanitizer and thousands of rolls of toilet paper–in the hopes of profiteering. The store managers (and some district attorneys) have had some choice words for them, often using words not appropriate for a family site.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top