SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)

[Revan]

With just over 1000 deaths nationally that makes a fatality rate the same or less than Flu? Seems highly unlikely.

I think there was some random testing there a week or two, that found 2.5% of the people carrying the virus. Now, that is the number of people who were infected at that moment, so it is a lower bound (some people might have been already healed and so no traces of the virus). However, with the disease having an exponential spread, the number of healed should be relatively small, pretty much negligible, so you can assume that 2.5% is more or less the correct number.

The sample was a few hundred people though, and I am not sure how representative it was (for example, did they also do kids etc)?

30-40% is too good to be true.

 

[Prometheus]

Australia is running at about 1% of those tested. So it will be well below 1% as most people who have had it won't have been tested.

Unfortunately, I don't think it will stay at about 1% (considering the trajectory that South Korea, Germany etc who had it well below 1% for while took).

 

[Wibble]

Yep. But at the same time, the number of those who are still infected is quite higher than the number of those who are healed. And while the death rate = number of deaths/number of infected, you can expect that some of those who are infected today, might die in the next few weeks and so the ratio will increase. Which is what eventually happened in Germany and South Korea.

But it did not in places who are doing much more testing (those that I mentioned). Until we have something more, I think that Iceland numbers should be the point of reference (though the main problem there is the relatively small sample).

We are testing more than most (2% of the population tested so far), our daily infections are way down and we are only using about 80 ventilators in total with 63 deaths to date. So I'd be surprised if the fatality rate doesn't drop further but we could also see a rise as you describe as deaths of already sick people occur later when there are even fewer infected due to the restrictions. I guess we also won't really know the rate until much later when we have an accurate figure for what % have been infected and recovered without being sick enough to be tested. If we hadn't let cruise ships land hoards of sick people we would have been in an amazingly good situation.

 

[Raees]

They criticized the US for banning flights to China (how on Earth this comes from an organization that is supposed to be about the health).

Only three days before China locked Wuhan, WHO said that the virus is not transmitting human to human, which was laughable. Yeah, hundreds of people ate infected bats or something.

They didn't declare this a pandemic until the situation became manageable in China.

And then the disgraceful treatment for Taiwan, just check the interview with that Canadian vice-chair of WHO.

They are totally corrupted and the entire top hierarchy needs to be fired. They would find a good job in China anyway, so it is all fine for them.

------

Now, don't get me wrong, President Twat is doing this mostly to shift the blame for himself. And while he was right on banning the flights to China et al., he did feck all in between to prepare for the inevitable pandemic. So, in some level, I agree that the discussion is a bit academical, probably nothing would have changed if WHO acted faster and weren't essentially doing a PR job for China. But at the same time, it needs to be the World Health Organisation, not a propaganda machine for one of the superpowers. China is very good at hiding information, no need for the other countries to pay money to some organization that then does that for China.

Agree with all this. There was a wonderful article about the changing nature of the WHO and how it has become increasingly corrupt and ineffective ever since it ‘overplayed’ it’s hand in other potential pandemics and since then it has become a shadow of its former self since the great work it did with Sars.

 

[Skills]

Anyone have any stats on the tests hit rate over time, for each country?

i.e. you do 20k tests & get 8000 positive results. Would be interesting how that's changed over time, as that tells how your testing capacity is keeping up with the infection

 

[Wibble]

Anyone have any stats on the tests hit rate over time, for each country?

i.e. you do 20k tests & get 8000 positive results. Would be interesting how that's changed over time, as that tells how your testing capacity is keeping up with the infection

Ballpark Australia is finding 1.5% of those tested to be infected - very ballpark based on testing being in the region of 20k per million people (varies by state) and us having just over 6k confirmed cases.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

so you can assume that 2.5% is more or less the correct number.

And yet for the 2 weeks leading up to 8th April, 7.5% of women giving birth in Stockholm were bearing the virus.
And the virus only shows in lab results for around the first 5 days that you are bearing it.
So it is likley much higher than 7.5%.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

With just over 1000 deaths nationally that makes a fatality rate the same or less than Flu? Seems highly unlikely.

1000 deaths now Wibs, but that number will keep increasing as even if it was a crazy figure like 30%, many of those in risk groups would not have died from it yet.
We won’t know for another couple of weeks though here when antibody tests are trusted enough and roll out. So realise I’m heavily on the side of optimism.

 

[Prometheus]

How then it is a bit below that in Diamond Princess despite the extreme age shift there?

And why Iceland who has done more testing that any other country is at 0.45% (with just a few critical cases)?

With regards to Iceland how many people and what percentage of the population is infected? Testing alone doesn't tell you that much.

The data from Diamond Princess is fascinating, but there are people still in critical care, right? So we don't have true CFR yet either.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

With regards to Iceland how many people and what percentage of the population is infected? Testing alone doesn't tell you that much.

The data from Diamond Princess is fascinating, but there are people still in critical care, right? So we don't have true CFR yet either.

When talking about the CFR, does anybody know if kids between 1-16 are commonly tested in any country?

 

[Prometheus]

And the virus only shows in lab results for around the first 5 days that you are bearing it.

What do you mean?

 

[Revan]

With regards to Iceland how many people and what percentage of the population is infected? Testing alone doesn't tell you that much.

The data from Diamond Princess is fascinating, but there are people still in critical care, right? So we don't have true CFR yet either.

1720 people tested positive, 8 deaths so far (with 8 others in serious/critical care). Over 36k testings which should be somewhere between 5-10% of the population (I assume many people tested multiple times). The trend does not seem to be too bad, the number of new infections is on single digits.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

What do you mean?

See below, they have said that due to the difficulty to culture the virus after the first 5 days (unless a patient is very sick), the test will only pick up a positive result for the first 5 days.

It is difficult to spread the virus after the first five days of illness, as long as you are not really sick.
"When you have a mild infection, you see that the levels of culturable virus fall sharply after five days, after which it is difficult in studies to show that the virus particles can spread further," says Karin Tegmark Wisell, head of the department of microbiology at the Public Health Authority.
Karin Tegmark Wisell.

Viruses, unlike bacteria, do not live. However, active or inactive virus is differentiated, ie the virus's ability to lead to infection. And that ability gets worse the longer it goes.
- The first five days you have high levels of the virus that can also pass on to new people, but after five days they decrease levels, says Karin Tegmark Wisell.

 

[Revan]

And yet for the 2 weeks leading up to 8th April, 7.5% of women giving birth in Stockholm were bearing the virus.
And the virus only shows in lab results for around the first 5 days that you are bearing it.
So it is likley much higher than 7.5%.

I hope this is true, would be really great news. Even if it just 10%, it means that the virus is much less lethal than we thought.

I don't understand the 5 days thing.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

I don't understand the 5 days thing.

see above.

 

[Suedesi]

Germany, unfortunately, is much worse than that (around 2.5%), but it could be that a large number of people are not diagnosed despite being sick. South Korea have a similar figure.

To be fair, for capita, they are nowhere near the top. UAE is the second-highest after Iceland, and they have around 0.55%, though they have more people who got sick recently so it can become higher. Luxembourg are third, but they have a high fatality rate of 2%. Malta is fourth and have a rate of around 0.75%. Bahrain is fifth at testing and has a fatality rate of 0.45%.

Singapore has not done extreme testing, but they have been good at quarantining people early and doing contact tracing. Their death rate is at 0.3%.

I'm talking about the true case fatality rate though and I know that that's hard to come by because there's an inherent severity bias on testing. Many cases go unreported because people with milder symptoms may not seek medical attention. In the US for example the only people who'll get tested, especially in the early stages are people who are really showing severe symptoms. Even now, tests are not readily available, there's a limited supply per testing site, and you have to queue up for hours. Then it's not exactly a pleasant experience getting that swab through your nose until it hits resistance. Point being, I can see mildly symptomatic people not getting tested. And to be fair, the numerator could also be under-reported causing another (bigger) skew.

So simply dividing number of deaths (likely under-reported) by number of individuals diagnosed (very likely under-reported) needs some adjustments.

When H1N1 hit, the CFR was initially deemed to be much higher, it was only once we appreciated how prevalent it was that the CFR came so far down (I think it's 0.1%)

I think the Imperial College model used an IFR of 0.9% and the Oxford study used a CFR of 0.14%. I recall seeing an article in the Lancet pegging the CFR in Germany at 0.37%. Probably we won't truly know until we do retrospective studies looking at antibodies to understand how prevalent it is. Personally, I think it's in the 0.5% range (obviously that's an average, people in different age brackets and with different preexisting illnesses will carry different risks).

 

[Revan]

see above.

Yep, sorry was writing my post when you posted it, so didn't see it.

I still don't understand if after 5 days even if there is less virus to be spread, why does the testing shows as negative?

 

[Prometheus]

See below, they have said that due to the difficulty to culture the virus after the first 5 days (unless a patient is very sick), the test will only pick up a positive result for the first 5 days.

That's not what you said, though. It says the virus spreads less after 5 or so days. You said:

And the virus only shows in lab results for around the first 5 days that you are bearing it.

This is false.

Regarding your question, I think South Korea for example has been testing everyone including children.

 

[Revan]

I'm talking about the true case fatality rate though and I know that that's hard to come by because there's an inherent severity bias on testing. Many cases go unreported because people with milder symptoms may not seek medical attention. In the US for example the only people who'll get tested, especially in the early stages are people who are really showing severe symptoms. Even now, tests are not readily available, there's a limited supply per testing site, and you have to queue up for hours. Then it's not exactly a pleasant experience getting that swab through your nose until it hits resistance. Point being, I can see mildly symptomatic people not getting tested. And to be fair, the numerator could also be under-reported causing another (bigger) skew.

So simply dividing number of deaths (likely under-reported) by number of individuals diagnosed (very likely under-reported) needs some adjustments.

When H1N1 hit, the CFR was initially deemed to be much higher, it was only once we appreciated how prevalent it was that the CFR came so far down (I think it's 0.1%)

I think the Imperial College model used an IFR of 0.9% and the Oxford study used a CFR of 0.14%. I recall seeing an article in the Lancet pegging the CFR in Germany at 0.37%. Probably we won't truly know until we do retrospective studies looking at antibodies to understand how prevalent it is. Personally, I think it's in the 0.5% range (obviously that's an average, people in different age brackets and with different preexisting illnesses will carry different risks).

Yep, agree with all of this. I also think it would be around 0.5%, plus minus 0.3% but obviously it is just a hunch.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

I still don't understand if after 5 days even if there is less virus to be spread, why does the testing shows as negative?

Ohh I can’t give you a great explanation but they said the levels drop off so dramatically that it becomes extremely difficult to culture it in a lab and therefore almost impossible to detect for a positive result after 5 days. (In the vast majority of cases).

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

That's not what you said, though. It says the virus spreads less after 5 or so days. You said:
This is false.

Regarding your question, I think South Korea for example has been testing everyone including children.

see above....

Any link on Korea by any chance?

 

[Skills]

See below, they have said that due to the difficulty to culture the virus after the first 5 days (unless a patient is very sick), the test will only pick up a positive result for the first 5 days.

The quote seems to be referring to spreading the virus. If it's in a sample, I think it will still come up in a PCR which is basically a chemical reaction to replicate for the virus' strand of RNA.

The problem with the test though is, the samples can degrade. I think they're having this problem in the middle east because its so hot. Not my field though.

 

[Revan]

Ohh I can’t give you a great explanation but they said the levels drop off so dramatically that it becomes extremely difficult to culture it in a lab and therefore almost impossible to detect for a positive result after 5 days. (In the vast majority of cases).

So then when they release someone from the hospital as being 'healed' how do they know that this is really the case (if the test shows negative in any case after 5 days)?

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

So then when they release someone from the hospital as being 'healed' how do they know that this is really the case (if the test shows negative in any case after 5 days)?

Well they would be the ”unless very sick” group wouldn’t they?

again...


It is difficult to spread the virus after the first five days of illness, as long as you are not really sick.

"When you have a mild infection, you see that the levels of culturable virus fall sharply after five days, after which it is difficult in studies to show that the virus particles can spread further," says Karin Tegmark Wisell, head of the department of microbiology at the Public Health Authority.
Karin Tegmark Wisell.

"When you have a mild infection, you see that the levels of culturable virus fall sharply after five days, after which it is difficult in studies to show that the virus particles can spread further”

 

[Prometheus]

Ohh I can’t give you a great explanation but they said the levels drop off so dramatically that it becomes extremely difficult to culture it in a lab and therefore almost impossible to detect for a positive result after 5 days. (In the vast majority of cases).

Do you have a source (of any language) on this?

 

[Revan]

Well they would be the ”unless very sick” group wouldn’t they?

again...


It is difficult to spread the virus after the first five days of illness, as long as you are not really sick.

"When you have a mild infection, you see that the levels of culturable virus fall sharply after five days, after which it is difficult in studies to show that the virus particles can spread further," says Karin Tegmark Wisell, head of the department of microbiology at the Public Health Authority.
Karin Tegmark Wisell.

"When you have a mild infection, you see that the levels of culturable virus fall sharply after five days, after which it is difficult in studies to show that the virus particles can spread further”

It makes sense now, thanks.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Do you have a source (of any language) on this?

https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/ny-studie-2-5-av-stockholmarna-bar-pa-viruset

Watch the video of the daily press conference:

”Man bär på viruset i kanske 5 dagar”

”You carry the virus for maybe 5 days”.

The following day they brought the head of the department of microbiology to the press conference to answer the questions about bearing for 5 days (as obviously all of the press had the same questions you guys have now so they wanted an expert to explain to them about “culturable levels etc” and her reply was the one I already posted.

 

[Suedesi]

See below, they have said that due to the difficulty to culture the virus after the first 5 days (unless a patient is very sick), the test will only pick up a positive result for the first 5 days.

One of my close colleagues had it in early March. Showed all the symptoms, unimaginable chest pain, fever, cough, difficulty breathing. Went to Fairfield to shack up and self-isolate at his sister's house (who's a doctor and could test him for flu and care for him better). Couldn't get a test for 3 weeks. When he eventually got one, it came back negative

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

One of my close colleagues had it in early March. Showed all the symptoms, unimaginable chest pain, fever, cough, difficulty breathing. Went to Fairfield to shack up and self-isolate at his sister's house (who's a doctor and could test him for flu and care for him better). Couldn't get a test for 3 weeks. When he eventually got one, it came back negative

kin ell.
That’s really why these antibody tests are so vital.
Too much guesswork still everywhere.

 

[Prometheus]

https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/ny-studie-2-5-av-stockholmarna-bar-pa-viruset

Watch the video of the daily press conference:

”Man bär på viruset i kanske 5 dagar”

”You carry the virus for maybe 5 days”.

The following day they brought the head of the department of microbiology to the press conference to answer the questions about bearing for 5 days (as obviously all of the press had the same questions you guys have now so they wanted an expert to explain to them about “culturable levels etc” and her reply was the one I already posted.

Again, I'm not doubting that you are able spread it less as time goes.

However, "...the virus only shows in lab results for around the first 5 days that you are bearing it" does not make sense.

I highly doubt a medical professional would actually make a claim like that.

 

[Wibble]

1000 deaths now Wibs, but that number will keep increasing as even if it was a crazy figure like 30%, many of those in risk groups would not have died from it yet.
We won’t know for another couple of weeks though here when antibody tests are trusted enough and roll out. So realise I’m heavily on the side of optimism.

Aren't we all? I think we are all looking forward to being on the other side of this.

 

[Wibble]

One of my close colleagues had it in early March. Showed all the symptoms, unimaginable chest pain, fever, cough, difficulty breathing. Went to Fairfield to shack up and self-isolate at his sister's house (who's a doctor and could test him for flu and care for him better). Couldn't get a test for 3 weeks. When he eventually got one, it came back negative

Plus there are estimates that up to 30% of tests are providing a false negative partly due to how difficult it is to collect samples.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

However, "...the virus only shows in lab results for around the first 5 days that you are bearing it" does not make sense.

If the majority of cases are, as suspected, extremely mild, many without any symptoms. And the virus levels in those drop off dramatically after 5 days, why is that hard to believe?

I mean, the head of microbiology confirmed this. Why are you not having it?

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Plus there are estimates that up to 30% of tests are providing a false negative partly due to how difficult it is to collect samples.

Yet Prometheus aint having it. The test is perfect and can pick it up even in tiny doses.
The head of microbiology here knows jack.

I swear he’d say the Earth is flat if I said it was a sphere.

 

[Suedesi]

kin ell.
That’s really why these antibody tests are so vital.
Too much guesswork still everywhere.

For sure, the data are all over the place. And most of these models guiding policy have assumptions built into them and you have to look closely at those assumptions because a small difference in the front end could lead to a big change on the end of it. My understanding is the assumed hospitalization rate was probably overstated at 20%. Looking at Westchester data, (there was a lot of testing in that part of NY state because of the outbreak in New Rochelle) the hospitalization rate was 5%. That’s a major change going from 20% to 5% in terms of what your ventilator needs are what your ICU bed needs are and what the case fatality ratio is going to be.

 

[Wibble]

Yet Prometheus aint having it. The test is perfect and can pick it up even in tiny doses.
The head of microbiology here knows jack.

I swear he’d say the Earth is flat if I said it was a sphere.

I think the phrasing was a bit odd maybe - probably a translation thing. If the virus in mild cases is essentially undetectable after only 5 days (from infection or 1st symptoms?) that is good news.

 

[Suedesi]

Aren't we all? I think we are all looking forward to being on the other side of this.

I think we are getting close to be honest. Obviously, this ain't going to be a one size fits all approach, as there's differences between countries, states and even municipalities and the answer will depend on what’s happening locally (how much transmission do you have, what is the antibody status of your population, what is your hospital capacity, what is your ability to do diagnostic testing) all that can help condition how we get back to "normal" or a "new normal" however you define that.

We can start taking steps, because the costs are measurable, they increase everyday and there going to be consequences that are not captured by the models which are only focused on the coronavirus at the moment.

 

[Prometheus]

If the majority of cases are, as suspected, extremely mild, many without any symptoms. And the virus levels in those drop off dramatically after 5 days, why is that hard to believe?

I mean, the head of microbiology confirmed this. Why are you not having it?

Nah, more like you made it up.

https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/opbBy7/folkhalsomyndigheten-du-smittar-i-ungefar-fem-dagar

The part "And the virus only shows in lab results for around the first 5 days that you are bearing it" is 100% made up by you.

That's why you have been unable to produce a clip or a source quoting the expert saying that.

 

[Wibble]

I think we are getting close to be honest. Obviously, this ain't going to be a one size fits all approach, as there's differences between countries, states and even municipalities and the answer will depend on what’s happening locally (how much transmission do you have, what is the antibody status of your population, what is your hospital capacity, what is your ability to do diagnostic testing) all that can help condition how we get back to "normal" or a "new normal" however you define that.

We can start taking steps, because the costs are measurable, they increase everyday and there going to be consequences that are not captured by the models which are only focused on the coronavirus at the moment.

I think we have a way to go yet. It may be that we can start a gradual roll-back but I can't see things being anywhere near normal for a long time yet. It will probably take a vaccine and a working anti-viral treatment to return to full normality.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Nah, more like you made it up.

https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/opbBy7/folkhalsomyndigheten-du-smittar-i-ungefar-fem-dagar

The part "And the virus only shows in lab results for around the first 5 days that you are bearing it" is 100% made up by you.

That's why you have been unable to produce a clip or a source quoting the expert saying that.

See: https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/de-forsta-fem-dagarna-ar-virusnivaerna-hoga

You are utterly embarrassing yourself now.

important part:
När ett virus kan sprida sig vidare i till nya celler och orsaka mer infektion hos en person så har man sett att det också går att odla det i laboratoriet, säger Tegmark-Wisell.

“When a virus can spread onwards to new cell and create more infection in a person, so it has been shown that then you can also grow it in a laboratory”

I swear, bringing any kind of positive news or developments into this thread is often scowled upon. I’m convinced a load of you are just desperate to see the World burn. I passed on a couple of findings from studies to Revan and I’ve now had to spend two pages providing sources and finally being told “I made it up”.