Corona Virus Updates Part 2

originally posted by: BruceZuckerberg
Just watched an interview with a Canadian who has WUFLU. The disease was so mild she didn’t even notice she had anything till they told her.

Wtf???


youtu.be...

This seems to be the case with some. And super spreaders don't seem to get very sick?

a reply to: musicismagic

I do eat, sleep, breath my ATS for years, do my own research n make my own conclusions but this is the best site for info. U ppl r great when ur not bitchin at eachother. We are all humans tho

originally posted by: new_here
While true, can you imagine the number of people who could be exposed to the virus by just ONE person whose incubation period is 24 days?

I can imagine many things. I prefer not to imagine 'The Stand' coming to life without at least some evidence that it could be happening.

There is simply no evidence of that... at this time.

a reply to: pasiphae

During the sars outbreak it was an r0 around 3, corona, is around per the study 3.7 with a lower CFR. which I agree makes no sense or is confusing as hell.

originally posted by: kwakakev
We are still in the early and growth stages of this pandemic, now is the time to get ready. As for the only cure, a time machine.

No. We. Are. Not.

Again...

It has been in the wild for months.

We should be seeing thousands of cases of infected, and at least some number of deaths, in most every country.

We are not.

originally posted by: Bicent
NEW VIRUS STUDY DATA


Some new data. The pneumonia percentage has my attention.

Not sure how good the data is but all I can find that is new.

This one is better then the one we all started with. They have a study size of 8866 patients. The very first paper had only 41. We're looking at a median incubation of between 3 and 7 days, so the 24 is still an extreme outlier and likely someone who wasn't on their way to getting it but had a second infection somewhere after the first known one.

Men seem more likely to have it? But there isn't a very high difference .31 v. ,27, but it was enough they noted it as a clear difference. Fatality rate was about 3% (reported with a 95% confidence interval). Those most at risk for death were males 60 and older with severe pneumonia and delayed diagnosis; it greatly elevated their risk of death.

They say it's comparable to SARS in transmissability but less lethal, and that with older males diagnosis before the onset of sever pneumonia is critical.

a reply to: pasiphae

This seems to be the case with some. And super spreaders don't seem to get very sick?

Not at this stage anyway, how will they be in 2-6 months if their body cannot fully eliminate the disease? If ones body is going to continually make the virus it is going to take a toll at some stage. Having the virus in the lungs is the main source of transmission, but what is going to happen as the virus spreads to other parts of their body?

Maybe it will just be like the usual flu and just sit in the background not doing much until we do get run down. Just trying to say we don't know what we are in for long term with this and try not to let your guard down.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: musicismagic

Not being flippant here, but if you had the virus and consumed a bottle of whisky, in a short period of time, wouldn't the alcohol content in the blood be high enough to kill all traces of the virus. Since its the alcohol based disinfectants which kill it off?

I tried that ONCE when I had a bad flu by drinking a fifth of Crown Royal. I got a good nights sleep, totally crashed out but the next morning I just wanted to shoot myself. Too much? All it did was add an extra day or two of misery.

a reply to: EndtheMadnessNow

Heh, you want to crash out, I suggest Ny-Quil. Less hangover that way.

a reply to: EnhancedInterrogator

The CCP already refused Americans to be on the WHO team itself.

The WHO team arrived, but nowhere can I find where there are Americans on the team, in fact VOA (link below) says it's unclear if there are Americans on the team now.

VOA

This is all I will say for the moment. There is a reason for me not saying more.

a reply to: SpartanStoic

Out of sheer morbid curiosity I wonder how many of those are in line with the good ol' FEMA camps conspiracy theory from years ago? I believe Fort Custer was on there.

a reply to: logicsoda

It's conjecture from both until confirmed, but the only 'evidence' that it came from a wet market is based off CCP information. No thanks!

a reply to: Agit8dChop

I've really begun to like this guy. I hope he has a political future following this. He'd have my vote, if only from his concern and transprarancy regarding the outbreak.

a reply to: musicismagic

Thank you for your updates and insights!

a reply to: anonentity

You would need your BAC to be around 60% for that to work!

In reality, it would probably make things worse. Your body would then be focusing some energy on fixing the effects of the alcohol. From what I understand, 2019-nCOV can be pretty hard on the liver as is.

a reply to: tanstaafl

I do have to agree somewhat with you. With an r0 of 3.7 we should have more cases, but perhaps they are not getting tested. Also with the info we have atm estimated a CFR of 3. That’s 3 people passing away out of 10 people. 🤷‍♂️ I dunno, China is getting the brunt of the sickness atm, maybe it will take more time.

a reply to: EndtheMadnessNow

I had a bad flue in London, real bad I managed to get into a Turkish Bath and sat in the hot room for a few hours, then crashed, and woke up much better, in fact cured.

Los Alamos National Labratory disese modeler submit new paper: The Novel Coronavirus, 2019-nCoV, is Highly Contagious and More Infectious Than Initially Estimated

"...we estimated the growth rate of the early outbreak in Wuhan to be 0.29 per day (a doubling time of 2.4 days), and the reproductive number, R0, to be between 4.7 to 6.6"

www.medrxiv.org... (not yet peer reviewed but from a highly reputable lab)

a reply to: Bicent

It may be a combination of factors at work there. Things that aren't quite the same elsewhere in the world.

Or it just may not be as bad as we're seeing. Or there are other things going on the we don't know about.

But if the "true plague" theory is true ... what is it, and why hasn't it gotten out? You'd think it would have escaped by now.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: fleabit

No one ever said 1% isn't bad, but it's also not Ebola level bad. It's also not the 40% mortality some people were raving about. Yeah, it's bad, but it's something that the world will survive, and so will most of us, even most of the people you know will.

It means that on average, for every 100 people you know, 1 will die, and I'm not treating it lightly at all. I have an aged father with congestive heart failure, so he's high risk to be in that 1%. I am acutely aware of it.

But what are you going to do? Run around wearing a sandwich board screaming "Repent! The End is Nigh?" The way I see it, there is very little to do but try to ride it out as best we can. Panicking over it benefits no one at all.

It's much worse than Ebola in reality. Ebola kills itself out by virtue of its high fatality rate.

The number of recovered to infected patients is alarming. Now into 6 weeks +, still at what.. 10% recovered? Which means 90% of very high numbers of infected not recovered. And many of the cases require ICU. Most hospitals, even in the U.S., don't have a large # of ICU beds.

Do you think there is a reason that they are building hospitals in days in China? That they are now quarantining and even locking people into their buildings in China? They don't have the hospital beds for them. Without medical help, that fatality rate can go up. Without hospital beds, with such an enormous load of patients, what do you do? The U.S. hospitals are already very often at full rates, bed-wise, and staff wise.. wearing out nurses and staff with double shifts on a regular basis. There are reports of a massive # of medical staff who are infected. Working long shifts, it's easy to make a mistake and become infected.

Having a massive outbreak of a virus will be terrible to the hospital systems in the United States.. and worse in other countries. In China it seems bad - and I guarantee it's worse than they are making it out to be. How bad? Who knows.. but it's already in a bad place, and will get worse.

Panic is not good. Preparation is. Most people I know at work are flippant and "meh" about the threat. If this becomes a true pandemic, and stresses out medical facilities in the U.S. - things will change in a hurry. Better to be prepared than "Meh.. if 1% of us dies, what can you do." More than 1% will die of this becomes a massive outbreak.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Adphil28
a reply to: tanstaafl

Agree it doesn’t stop you getting it, but it greatly reduces the impact of it on you when you do

Actually, contrary to popular myth, there is no real proof of that, only some questionable studies done by the pharma companies selling the vaccines.

As a pharmacist, I agree.

a reply to: KJmaps

So this is all mathematical models?

Are these models as good as the climate ones they use?

a reply to: kwakakev

That would be the first evidence this is sickening and killing children that I have seen. I thought it strange none of the photos/vids had any kids, and the studies being done had 22 as the youngest age of illness (not infection).

a reply to: fleabit

Do you pay attention to things I post?

Because I have written most of that before myself.

But no, this is not Ebola. It's not even close to Ebola.

Understand, they don't even know about most of those cases in China, and the ones they do know about are often the ones who are critical in the hospital. For all we know, they are forcibly jailing infected and depending on the outcome, they aren't even counting them one way or the other -- dead or alive.

I don't think at this point they care.

But yeah, if you get sick enough to need medical care and you live, you're going to need a long time to do it which is why recovery numbers lag death numbers. If it's going to kill you, you're going to die faster.