Illuminati-R-Us

Myriad reasons.

SARS and MERS had several problems: Only propagating through deep secretions, no asymptomatic carriers, high fatality rate, so good reasons for health systems to react and good angles to attack from.

Hemorrhagic fevers (Dengue, Ebola, Marburg) almost all have non-human reservoirs, some of which seem on the rise by way of climate change. They make "forays" into the human host, if you like

the influenza viruses don't disappear. Some lhey live on in non-human hosts, some mutate gradually out of the light cone of immunity and may come back as less harmful seasonal players. Some (like the common form of Coronavirus, Adenovirus, or the rhinoviridae) don't make much of an impact immunologically and leave less firm immunologic memories.

Rmember the years 08-10, when Norovirus used to cut down whole hopital wards with a really mean variety of the "frome both ends" game? I led a 28-bed ward in those days which was sealed with a steel door, and we had two junior doctors working there who caught it, twice, in a winter season. That seems to have let up quite a bit.

The short of it: Cuz biology. Range of mutations, range of mechanisms, range of hosts, range of individual host factors.

Thanks! That was a very good explanation.

Yes, that definitely was - thank you!

I had heard that it was to do with infection rates, less then 1 and they die out, more than 1 and they don’t naturally.

Yeah, isn't there a correlation between R0 and the percentage required for herd immunity?

Yep. Part of the reason why measles and chickenpox haven't become extinct is that measles typically have an R0 of 15-18 in un-immunized populations, and thus can find the odd unvaccinated individual. That was the reason why I posted the Wikipedia R0 chapter when Llance asked if Coronavirus is easier to transmit than the flu.

Okay, so if CoViD-19 has an R0 of 1.4-5.7, using 5.7 does that mean herd immunity kicks in at ~83%, or am I doing something wrong?

That's what I thought but apparently, there are subtleties. Mactep and I discussed this here some time ago. The thread contains links about the mathematical modelling of Covid-19, the best place to start is the numberphile video.

Seeing some early reports that a drug called "remdesivir" is showing some promise in serious cases.

Anyone else hearing anything?

Remdesivir is an experimental drug with broad activity against RNA viruses. It inhibits the viral RNA polymerases. It went as far as studies in humans, after anecdotal reprots of empirical treament in a few Ebola patients. A study with Remdesivir against anti-Ebola antibodies gave results in favor of the antibodies, with high (50%) mortality in the Remdesivir group.

Several studies in China are still open, in Germany, there are three studies currently recruiting. The manufacturer, Gilead Sciences, has had the drug approved as an "orphan drug" for treating rare disesases - kind of self defeating in an epidemic which will, by WHO definition, be a pandemic and therefore, not rare. The drug was being distributed to Corona patients all over the world in a "Compassionate Use" program early in the epidemic, access has now been expanded.

The Remdsivir story is a wonderful example of the diffictulties in drug development and approval. We just don't know if the stuff is effective, as large, randomized studies are missing. Yet the pressure to just use it and take care of the subtleties later is so immense (Compassionate Use - I mean, how can anyone not be compassionate?) that we may spoil our database re. drug effectiveness forever. And to designate a drug against a pandemic virus as an "orphan drug" is just manifest nonsense. It grants the manufacturer extended patent exclusivity + reduced evidence standards, which is a pharmaceuticals developer's wet dream. Get special protection for developing a drugf with a miniscule market (= rare disease) and then market it to a huge market (pandemic). Corks are popping at Gilead headquarters.

Speaking of the Devil: A hint at a response to treatment. And in Chicago, which seem on the way to become the new New York.

A couple of weeks ago I posted wondering if CoViD-19 may be far more widespread than we know about since so many cases (~50%) end up being asymptomatic. Apparently there is now some research supporting the possibility.

Coronavirus spread: Number of people infected by COVID-19 may be 50-80 times higher than official count, Stanford study suggests

Yes, it's bound to me more widespread than the number of officially diagnosed people. Not everyone who gets sick seeks medical help (for a range of reasons).

Which is why lots of governments started lock-down procedures

On the other hand here in SOuth Dakota, the one Smithfield pork plant has over 800 Corona victims. Their governor however sees no reason to close the plant or issue anay other sort of orders for social distancing or measures to contain this threat. As to why not close the plant she said, "We are a very business friendly state." yes, she actually said that.

Chances are if their workforce is all in their late teens/early 20s and live relatively healthy drug and booze free lifestyles, and don't suffer any autoimmune problems etc, then as long as they each have about 2 or 3 weeks sick leave up their sleeves, they should get away with only maybe 2 or 3 fatalities out of that 800. Their workers probably won't get compassionate leave for attending funerals of their dying elderly relatives though (seeing as how they'll all be spreading and re-spreading coronavirus around their friends and families for months.

New Zealand is being held up here as an example of a good, well managed response to coronavirus. What’s the word on the street on the ground there Tubes? People around you feel that way? Of course, we’re comparing it with the criminally negligent UK gov response, against which almost anything might look great.

There's generally been a lot of cooperation with Government edicts, but the goodwill of the plebs is showing early signs of waning. Some things stay the same - reckless yoofs still want to mingle and party. There's been a few arrests of 'curfew breakers' but few accusations of police brutality. Main concerns are about businesses and failing businesses and growing unemployment, and imminent tax rises to fund the growing dole queues. NZ can rely a bit on agricultural exports to prop up the economy (as long as other countries need to import extra food). Tourism is killed, which is hitting airlines, hotels and touristy places hard. There's been lots of layoffs in consultancies and law firms, as govt and local govt organisations hunker down and slash spending. Quite a few political types have offered to take 20% pay cuts, including Jacinda and her Cabinet. There even been a few layoffs in local Councils. Glad I'm not working in that sector anymore.

Tubes, did you see the Jacinda cake?

g-one wrote:Tubes, did you see the Jacinda cake?

At least we know what she would look like if she had a crack habit

tubeswell wrote:Chances are if their workforce is all in their late teens/early 20s and live relatively healthy drug and booze free lifestyles, and don't suffer any autoimmune problems etc, then as long as they each have about 2 or 3 weeks sick leave up their sleeves, they should get away with only maybe 2 or 3 fatalities out of that 800. Their workers probably won't get compassionate leave for attending funerals of their dying elderly relatives though (seeing as how they'll all be spreading and re-spreading coronavirus around their friends and families for months.

In South Dakota? Yeeeaahhh ... none of that is very likely at all.

Another possible symptom: https://www.somagnews.com/new-symptom-c ... iscovered/

I have no idea how things have got so bad when there are so many middle aged women with healing crystals in the world.

Enzo wrote:On the other hand here in SOuth Dakota, the one Smithfield pork plant has over 800 Corona victims. Their governor however sees no reason to close the plant or issue anay other sort of orders for social distancing or measures to contain this threat. As to why not close the plant she said, "We are a very business friendly state." yes, she actually said that.

Yup. It got closed, anyway. At least for now. Additionally, she also says that she trusts her people. Well, a handful of her people who work at the plant, but otherwise felt fine, took the opportunity to go fishing together on the Missouri River, visiting several stores and shops along the way.

By the way, she called off public school for the rest of the school year a couple of weeks ago, already (a remarkably prudent move, in my opinion). Priorities, priorities - schools don't generate tax revenue.

tubeswell wrote:Chances are if their workforce is all in their late teens/early 20s and live relatively healthy drug and booze free lifestyles, and don't suffer any autoimmune problems etc, then as long as they each have about 2 or 3 weeks sick leave up their sleeves, they should get away with only maybe 2 or 3 fatalities out of that 800. Their workers probably won't get compassionate leave for attending funerals of their dying elderly relatives though (seeing as how they'll all be spreading and re-spreading coronavirus around their friends and families for months.

The workforce there is extremely varied - 18 year olds all the way to 70 year olds but not especially representative of South Dakota as a whole (a good thing - we're getting pretty old). So far, the only fatality linked to the outbreak is a man in his mid 60s. With the weather getting better and a general apathetic attitude towards health and safety, this does not bode well for us.

MM_Dandy wrote:

tubeswell wrote:Chances are if their workforce is all in their late teens/early 20s and live relatively healthy drug and booze free lifestyles, and don't suffer any autoimmune problems etc, then as long as they each have about 2 or 3 weeks sick leave up their sleeves, they should get away with only maybe 2 or 3 fatalities out of that 800. Their workers probably won't get compassionate leave for attending funerals of their dying elderly relatives though (seeing as how they'll all be spreading and re-spreading coronavirus around their friends and families for months.

The workforce there is extremely varied - 18 year olds all the way to 70 year olds but not especially representative of South Dakota as a whole (a good thing - we're getting pretty old). So far, the only fatality linked to the outbreak is a man in his mid 60s. With the weather getting better and a general apathetic attitude towards health and safety, this does not bode well for us.

Yep thought as much. My list of assumptions were tongue'n'cheekish