Facemasks

[whiskywill]

"The virus is able to survive on various asurfaces."

Whiskeywill, that is a VERY sweeping statement, not true of viruses in general.

So why are there examples of "deep cleaning" where victims of the virus have been?

Found on a random website. "But how long can the new coronavirus linger on surfaces, anyway? The short answer is, we don't know. But if this new coronavirus resembles other human coronaviruses, such as its "cousins" that cause SARS and MERS, it can stay on surfaces — such as metal, glass or plastic — for as long as nine days, according to a new study. (In comparison, flu viruses can last on surfaces for only about 48 hours.)

In the new study, researchers analyzed several dozen previously published papers on human coronaviruses (other than the new coronavirus) to get a better idea of how long they can survive outside of the body. The authors found that these coronaviruses can linger on surfaces for over a week but that some of them don't remain active for as long at temperatures higher than 86 degrees Fahrenheit (30 degrees Celsius). The authors also found that these coronaviruses can be effectively wiped away by household disinfectants.

 

[SammyQ]

Thank you whiskywill; interesting reading. I retract my comment in the light of your supplied information.
Broadly speaking, viruses can be very fragile and some will 'live' (remain potent or viable) less than a minute outside a host. Obviously, with Covid19, given what you quoted, there is a potential risk of sustained viral presence - given the 'familial' characteristics. What IS unknown though, is the exact degree of Covid19's durability. This could indeed be similar to SARS et al, or it could be much less. At the risk of stating the obvious, "why take risks?" - your earlier point stands.

Sam

 

[Blackswanwood]

The BBC have an article which sums up the known information on the numbers (How deadly is the Coronavirus) pretty well in my opinion.

I was due to go to the Philippines with work hubbing through Hong Kong (ninety minutes on the ground) but decided to defer due to the uncertainty of the situation. It is now rearranged for in a couple of weeks time flying via Dubai but cases are emerging in the Gulf states now, flights being reduced and the prospect of the Philippines saying (as they are with Hong Kong) that they will not accept arrivals from there. My expectation is increasingly that I will have to defer again.

My employer use an excellent firm of risk managers to keep us safe when we travel on business abroad ... they pretty much summed it up for me - no one really knows but a small increase in the rate of infection means many more fatalities (the line increases exponentially) so erring on the side of caution is absolutely the right thing to do.

 

[Trainee neophyte]

I was rather embarrassed to admit to "panic buying" the other day, but as I mentioned, he who panics first, panics best. Turns out I was right: https://greece.greekreporter.com/2020/0 ... harmacies/
https://www.keeptalkinggreece.com/2020/ ... kets-raid/

Hardly has the first confirmed case of coronavirus case in Thessaloniki has been announced and the residents of the second biggest city of Greece quickly found their way to to the supermarkets.

They load their carts with staples like pasta, rice, milk, baby and powder milk, toilet paper and detergents. There is high demand also for oil, flour and sugar, while antiseptics have disappeared from the shelves

Whilst it is nonsense, it is human nature. Have you done your panic buying yet? That set of chisels, the extra hardwood order, that complicated UKJ jig that you might have a need for, at some point...oh, and some pasta and rice, obviously.

 

[RogerS]

The BBC have an article which sums up the known information on the numbers (How deadly is the Coronavirus) pretty well in my opinion.

I was due to go to the Philippines with work hubbing through Hong Kong (ninety minutes on the ground) but decided to defer due to the uncertainty of the situation. It is now rearranged for in a couple of weeks time flying via Dubai but cases are emerging in the Gulf states now, flights being reduced and the prospect of the Philippines saying (as they are with Hong Kong) that they will not accept arrivals from there. My expectation is increasingly that I will have to defer again.

My employer use an excellent firm of risk managers to keep us safe when we travel on business abroad ... they pretty much summed it up for me - no one really knows but a small increase in the rate of infection means many more fatalities (the line increases exponentially) so erring on the side of caution is absolutely the right thing to do.

Can I have your airmiles, please ?

Was trying to get SWMBO to come away for a city break in Seville but she's not having it God knows, we need some sun.

Meanwhile, back on topic, I don't know if the rules have changed or indeed whether there is a lack of funding by country govts but under WHO rules (as I understand it) if the declare a pandemic then funding comes from some central fund ....World Bank or somesuch. On the ground, not sure if that will make any difference.

 

[RogerS]

I was rather embarrassed to admit to "panic buying" the other day, but as I mentioned, he who panics first, panics best. Turns out I was right: https://greece.greekreporter.com/2020/0 ... harmacies/
https://www.keeptalkinggreece.com/2020/ ... kets-raid/

Hardly has the first confirmed case of coronavirus case in Thessaloniki has been announced and the residents of the second biggest city of Greece quickly found their way to to the supermarkets.

They load their carts with staples like pasta, rice, milk, baby and powder milk, toilet paper and detergents. There is high demand also for oil, flour and sugar, while antiseptics have disappeared from the shelves

Whilst it is nonsense, it is human nature. Have you done your panic buying yet? That set of chisels, the extra hardwood order, that complicated UKJ jig that you might have a need for, at some point...oh, and some pasta and rice, obviously.

SWMBO was prescient. Thessaloniki was city choice No 2 !

Anyone played Plague on their phone or tablet. It's remarkably realistic especially in light of current events.

 

[SammyQ]

"but a small increase in the rate of infection means many more fatalities (the line increases exponentially) "

...really?

THIS is a random exponential graph, taken from somewhere on t'internet. If fatalities rise "exponentially", they will peak at infinity, i.e. every living being on the planet...the reality is 2% mortality - but also, only in those who contract the disease.

Sam

 

[Trainee neophyte]

Meanwhile, back on topic, I don't know if the rules have changed or indeed whether there is a lack of funding by country govts but under WHO rules (as I understand it) if the declare a pandemic then funding comes from some central fund ....World Bank or somesuch. On the ground, not sure if that will make any difference.

I had a brief look at this the other day: nobody wants to declare a pandemic, despite all the conditions for "pandemic" applying, because they have sold some "Pandemic Bonds", which are very cunning financial instruments. The deal is that you buy the bonds, and if there is no pandemic by the maturity date, you get your money back, plus some interest. However, to make them more exciting they have attached some derivative product to it, so Wall St and friends stand to make / lose significantly more than they invested, should a pandemic occur or not.

https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press ... g-facility
https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/hal ... rivatives/
https://www.mintpressnews.com/wall-stre ... ds/265264/

 

[Blackswanwood]

"but a small increase in the rate of infection means many more fatalities (the line increases exponentially) "

...really?



THIS is a random exponential graph, taken from somewhere on t'internet. If fatalities rise "exponentially", they will peak at infinity, i.e. every living being on the planet...the reality is 2% mortality - but also, only in those who contract the disease.

Sam

As a I understand it an exponential curve is one where the rate of change recorded by the graph On the y access increases as you move along the x axis. If I’m mathematically wrong I apologise!

The graph I was shown highlighted that if the number of people getting infected increased it was not a directly proportionate number that then died ... the proportion who died increased at a faster rate. Clearly it’s an opinion but it’s a professional one.

The graph did not show the end of the human race but it convinced me that this is a bit more than man flu!

 

[SammyQ]

The graph I was shown highlighted that if the number of people getting infected increased it was not a directly proportionate number that then died ... the proportion who died increased at a faster rate. Clearly it’s an opinion but it’s a professional one.

Ummm..."if the number of people getting infected increased it was not a directly proportionate number that then died ... the proportion who died increased at a faster rate. "...so, you're saying that: if the morbidity rate (infections) increased, the mortality (death rate) increased at a rate faster than the morbidity? . I am struggling to see how or why. Cruise ship, close-quarter, dubious hygiene, possibly, but not 'normal' dispersed, separate homes populations. Blocks of flats might approximate, but semi's, bungalows etc no. Educate me?

Sam

 

[Blackswanwood]

It's the cumulative effect of more people being infected and in turn infecting more people (the population infect increases faster) and the strain this places on the healthcare resources available.

Clearly we all have to make our own minds up on whether we believe it - personally I do.

Cheers.

 

[Trainee neophyte]

The graph I was shown highlighted that if the number of people getting infected increased it was not a directly proportionate number that then died ... the proportion who died increased at a faster rate. Clearly it’s an opinion but it’s a professional one.

Ummm..."if the number of people getting infected increased it was not a directly proportionate number that then died ... the proportion who died increased at a faster rate. "...so, you're saying that: if the morbidity rate (infections) increased, the mortality (death rate) increased at a rate faster than the morbidity? . I am struggling to see how or why. Cruise ship, close-quarter, dubious hygiene, possibly, but not 'normal' dispersed, separate homes populations. Blocks of flats might approximate, but semi's, bungalows etc no. Educate me?

Sam

I think he is saying that there will be more deaths in total, not that the death rate as a percentage will increase. I.e. 2% of 100 million is a bigger number than 2% of 100, but it is still 2%.

In terms of the graph, I would expect a nice S-curve:

The infection rate will ramp up hugely in the initial stages, exactly as we are seeing, going from single cases to tens to hundreds to thousands etc, but eventually everyone who is going to get it will have already had it, and have recovered or died. About 80% of all of humanity seems to be a reasonable estimate, as I understand it, because after that the virus is going to struggle to find anyone who doesn't already have antibodies. 2% of 80% of 7 billion, anyone?

 

[Trevanion]

Not sure if any of you guys have seen these videos but this guy seems to know what he's talking about, he is a doctor after all!

[youtube]5rOTz9duXwo[/youtube]

I'm still a bit skeptical about how much on an impact it's actually going to have in the UK as the numbers, in reality, are still tiny. But I guess nothing is out of the realm of possibility.

 

[Blackswanwood]

I think he is saying that there will be more deaths in total, not that the death rate as a percentage will increase. I.e. 2% of 100 million is a bigger number than 2% of 100, but it is still 2%.

No, that is not what I am saying TN.

The point I am trying to make (and seems to be given some merit in the video posted by Trevanion) is that if more people get infected each day the number of deaths is likely to go up at a rate faster than than the number of people infected.

Cheers

Ps and just to reiterate I don’t think this means domesday but it has the potential to be significant.

 

[RogerS]

..... is that if more people get infected each day the number of deaths is likely to go up at a rate faster than than the number of people infected.
...

That doesn't make any sense to me at all if I read you correctly. What I think you are suggesting is that if the death rate is 2% then if 100 people are infected that 2 people will die. But if 200 people are infected then more than 4 will die. Did I get that right ?

The rate of numbers infected can increase exponentially but not the death rate. The number of deaths will increase but the percentage remains the same.

 

[Trainee neophyte]

I think he is saying that there will be more deaths in total, not that the death rate as a percentage will increase. I.e. 2% of 100 million is a bigger number than 2% of 100, but it is still 2%.

No, that is not what I am saying TN.

The point I am trying to make (and seems to be given some merit in the video posted by Trevanion) is that if more people get infected each day the number of deaths is likely to go up at a rate faster than than the number of people infected.

Cheers

Ps and just to reiterate I don’t think this means domesday but it has the potential to be significant.

Thanks for the clarification: can you tell us why? It doesn't seem to make sense, assuming all other things remain the same. What is changing as the number of infections increases?

 

[Blackswanwood]

It’s the capacity of health services around the world to cope with what could be a significant increase in demand. My guess is the UK would fare relatively better than many other countries but could still be stretched.

 

[RogerS]

It’s the capacity of health services around the world to cope with what could be a significant increase in demand. My guess is the UK would fare relatively better than many other countries but could still be stretched.

Ah, I should have got that sooner as it was I who mentioned the high morbidity of Covid-19.

 

[SammyQ]

TN? Thst is a sigmoid curve, not an exponential one. QUITE different implications!!

Blackswanwood, I am still struggling to see how this would work, but what I think you are getting at, rightly, is that for many, symptoms will be so mild as to not be noticeable? So, their viral load will go untested - and uncounted ? Wheras, deaths are (sorry) anything but, and therefore, the 'apparent' death rate will exceed the 'percieved' ( but under -counted) infection rate?

Sam

 

[RogerS]

TN? Thst is a sigmoid curve, not an exponential one. QUITE different implications!!

Blackswanwood, I am still struggling to see how this would work, but what I think you are getting at, rightly, is that for many, symptoms will be so mild as to not be noticeable? So, their viral load will go untested - and uncounted ? Wheras, deaths are (sorry) anything but, and therefore, the 'apparent' death rate will exceed the 'percieved' ( but under -counted) infection rate?

Sam

No, that's not what he's saying. Because Covid-19 has higher morbidity, it follows that the demands placed on the NHS per infected patient are also higher. As more and more people get infected then these demands will increase. The NHS has a finite resource. There will come a time when the NHS resources will be overwhelmed. Which means that some patients will not, and not for want of trying, get the care that they need in a timely fashion and so will die.