- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) ***W.H.O. DECLARES A GLOBAL PANDEMIC***
Posted on 6/15/20 at 3:32 pm to klrstix
Posted on 6/15/20 at 3:32 pm to klrstix
quote:
Your BS contradiction does not take into account asymptomatic people who are not even aware they are infected. As a result your assumption that someone is "healthy" because they are not presenting any symptoms is flawed.
If someone is infected and not displaying/never displays symptoms, are they unhealthy or sick?
1
Posted on 6/15/20 at 3:35 pm to Sasquatch Smash
quote:
If someone is infected and not displaying/never displays symptoms, are they unhealthy or sick?
Probably the better question is are they able transmit the disease...
I do not know the answer to that.
Posted on 6/15/20 at 3:49 pm to WaWaWeeWa
Diamond Princess:
3,711 total on board
712 cases
331 asymptotic at time of testing
14 deaths.
3,711 total on board
712 cases
331 asymptotic at time of testing
14 deaths.
Posted on 6/15/20 at 5:53 pm to klrstix
quote:
Probably the better question is are they able transmit the disease...
I do not know the answer to that.
I believe there was some recent research and a CDC/WHO announcement that they really don’t.
Posted on 6/15/20 at 6:12 pm to klrstix
quote:
quote:
If someone is infected and not displaying/never displays symptoms, are they unhealthy or sick?
quote:
Probably the better question is are they able transmit the disease...
I do not know the answer to that.
Many of the very high profile early cases that were traceable indicate that the "spreader" was PRE-symptomatic at the time of spread.
One example is the lawyer from upstate NY who had returned from Europe and spread it to numerous people in religious gatherings in his community, his workplace, and his kids who then spread it to college classmates. He eventually did get sick with it but all of the traced contact happened before he was showing any signs.
There were many similar examples from early March of people spreading it in the 2-3 days before showing symptoms themselves.
That people who remain completely asymptomatic spread it easily seems to be a debate as far as I know.
Posted on 6/15/20 at 7:06 pm to wm72
I really don't understand why there is still an argument.
We know that in large cities with large public transit and large apartment buildings there is high transmition. In areas where people don't live in large buildings or travel together transmition is low. Mortality rate was between .8 and .4, with current treatments mortality rate has dropped to between .4 and .2.
In densely populated urban areas, lockdowns do little to slow the spread. The spread slows when 20% have been infected.
We know that in large cities with large public transit and large apartment buildings there is high transmition. In areas where people don't live in large buildings or travel together transmition is low. Mortality rate was between .8 and .4, with current treatments mortality rate has dropped to between .4 and .2.
In densely populated urban areas, lockdowns do little to slow the spread. The spread slows when 20% have been infected.
Posted on 6/15/20 at 7:51 pm to MarcusQuinn
quote:
Diamond Princess: 3,711 total on board 712 cases 331 asymptotic at time of testing 14 deaths.
Thank you both for correcting my totally incorrect data. I got the info using the search function on an earlier thread. My apologies.
My question still stands though. Why did only 20% of the people on board contract the virus?
With a closed air system, people breathing those droplets virtually non-stop, and an older demographic...14 deaths from 3711 people seems awfully low. Especially given that this ship was basically a floating Petri dish. In short, does the data from the Diamond Princess support the airborne droplet theory?
Obviously I am not so sure. Thoughts?
Posted on 6/15/20 at 9:36 pm to jimmy the leg
There is no way to know for sure unless they did antibody tests and even that may not capture everyone who had the virus.
The fact that they didn’t follow up all these people with an antibody study is pure negligence. I suspect it’s because it wouldn’t have fit the narrative at the time.
The fact that they didn’t follow up all these people with an antibody study is pure negligence. I suspect it’s because it wouldn’t have fit the narrative at the time.
Posted on 6/16/20 at 1:56 pm to WaWaWeeWa
More evidence that the WHO was wrong from jump on something dealing with this disease.
Data from Britain's RECOVERY Trial showing that corticosteroids are a valid treatment for CoviD-19. (The WHO initially recommended against the use of steroids.)
Press release on the subject from the University of Oxford.
Hopefully they got their numbers right for dosages and whatnot for this branch of the study. As mentioned previously, it appears as though they were giving HCQ patients 3 times the dose than anyone else was giving.
Data from Britain's RECOVERY Trial showing that corticosteroids are a valid treatment for CoviD-19. (The WHO initially recommended against the use of steroids.)
quote:
The effect of dexamethasone was most striking among critically ill patients on ventilators. Those who were receiving oxygen therapy but were not on ventilators also saw improvement: their risk of dying was reduced by 20%. The steroid had no effect on people with mild cases of COVID-19 — those not receiving oxygen or ventilation.
Press release on the subject from the University of Oxford.
quote:
Dexamethasone reduced deaths by one-third in ventilated patients (rate ratio 0.65 [95% confidence interval 0.48 to 0.88]; p=0.0003) and by one fifth in other patients receiving oxygen only (0.80 [0.67 to 0.96]; p=0.0021). There was no benefit among those patients who did not require respiratory support (1.22 [0.86 to 1.75; p=0.14).
Based on these results, 1 death would be prevented by treatment of around 8 ventilated patients or around 25 patients requiring oxygen alone.
Hopefully they got their numbers right for dosages and whatnot for this branch of the study. As mentioned previously, it appears as though they were giving HCQ patients 3 times the dose than anyone else was giving.
This post was edited on 6/16/20 at 1:58 pm
Posted on 6/16/20 at 2:04 pm to WaWaWeeWa
Viral load preprint basically saying what many have thought. From abstract:
Another preprint looking at case severity and replication. Looks like those with sever cases are infectious longer than those with mild cases.
quote:
We are the first to report that SARS-CoV-2 viral load at the time of presentation is an independent predictor of COVID-19 mortality in a large patient cohort (n=1,145). Viral loads should be used to identify higher-risk patients that may require more aggressive care and should be included as a key biomarker in the development of predictive algorithms.
All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
medRxiv preprint doi: LINK version posted June 12, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint
Another preprint looking at case severity and replication. Looks like those with sever cases are infectious longer than those with mild cases.
quote:
Persistent SARS-CoV-2 replication could be demonstrated in severe COVID-19 cases for periods up to 32 days after the onset of symptoms
Posted on 6/17/20 at 1:25 pm to WaWaWeeWa
Idaho county with nearly 25% as positive for antibodies.
That's interesting.
That's interesting.
This post was edited on 6/17/20 at 8:37 pm
Posted on 6/17/20 at 2:32 pm to Sasquatch Smash
I feel like my post on March 16th, the day restaurants shut down for 2 months, was accurate.
This post was edited on 6/17/20 at 2:32 pm
Posted on 6/17/20 at 2:34 pm to klrstix
quote:You're not understanding what he's saying. "Healthy" is an unimportant term as it pertains to masks anyway.
Your BS contradiction does not take into account asymptomatic people who are not even aware they are infected. As a result your assumption that someone is "healthy" because they are not presenting any symptoms is flawed.
Posted on 6/17/20 at 6:17 pm to Sasquatch Smash
Wow. That’s hard to believe with such a low population density. Interesting.
Posted on 6/18/20 at 7:29 am to WaWaWeeWa
Preprint from an Italian study looking at probability of developing symptoms or critical disease after infection.
Basically as expected given everything we know about this disease.
quote:
69.1% of all infected individuals aged less than 60 years did not develop symptoms (95% confidence interval: 66.7-71.4%). The risk of symptoms increased with age. 6.9% of infected subjects older than 60 years had critical disease, with males at significantly higher risk.
quote:
Symptomatic cases were defined as infected subjects showing upper or lower respiratory tract symptoms (e.g. cough, shortness of breath), or fever =37.5 °C. Critical cases were defined as patients either admitted to an intensive care unit or deceased with a diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Basically as expected given everything we know about this disease.
This post was edited on 6/18/20 at 7:37 am
Posted on 6/18/20 at 8:18 am to Sasquatch Smash
quote:If even close to true, we handled this like absolute retards
69.1% of all infected individuals aged less than 60 years did not develop symptoms (95% confidence interval: 66.7-71.4%). The risk of symptoms increased with age. 6.9% of infected subjects older than 60 years had critical disease, with males at significantly higher risk.
We quarantined the young and healthy, and ripped them from their daily lives, and then threw covid directly at the old and sick
Posted on 6/18/20 at 9:03 am to lsupride87
quote:
If even close to true, we handled this like absolute retards
We quarantined the young and healthy, and ripped them from their daily lives, and then threw covid directly at the old and sick
Yep.
But I'd be curious as to whether or not there are different viral strains at work here, as far as severity is concerned. I know cornaviruses are supposed to be more stable than flu viruses, but it would be interesting if we allowed the more deadly strain to concentrate in nursing homes and then hospitals rather than having healthy people handle and spread the less deadly strain with regular activities. Though, if the virus is mostly stable and they are equally severe, age effect is the thing at play.
And to say again, in a 2019 document in regards to flu pandemics, the WHO recommended against quarantining of healthy people even if possibly exposed.
This post was edited on 6/18/20 at 9:05 am
Posted on 6/18/20 at 10:22 am to Sasquatch Smash
I think opening bars, on campus in particular, is about to result in a notable increase in cases. There’s a growing buzz. If so, it will be interesting to see how newer cases correlate with hospitalizations. The early spread included a notable percentage of elderly patients. Id assume those congregating in bars right now are a younger, healthier demographic.
This post was edited on 6/18/20 at 10:47 am
Posted on 6/18/20 at 10:27 am to MarcusQuinn
Definitely what’s happening in Texas.
25 percent of those hospitalized in Travis county (Austin) are younger than 30
25 percent of those hospitalized in Travis county (Austin) are younger than 30
Posted on 6/18/20 at 10:49 am to escatawpabuckeye
quote:And?
25 percent of those hospitalized in Travis county (Austin) are younger than 30
That has been pretty standard since thing started
Roughly 20% of hospitalizations across the US has been people ages 20-44
From Johns Hopkins
quote:
Risk groups
Older age, especially > 65 yrs and people with comorbidities appear more likely to develop an infection and severe symptoms and be at risk for death.
Males are more affected, especially with critical illness COVID-19.
Younger adults are also being hospitalized in the U.S.
Adults 20–44 account for 20% of hospitalizations, 12% of ICU admissions.
Also of note
quote:
Disease spectrum
~80-90% of infections are not severe and many may be asymptomatic.
LINK
This post was edited on 6/18/20 at 10:51 am
Page 1137 of 1190
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News