CoVid-19 Part IX - 785 cases ROI (3 deaths) 108 in NI (1 death) (20 March) *Read OP*

TheAsYLuMkeY wrote: »

I have a question if any close to the drinks industry is on here or if you know anyone.

Hand sanitiser is hard to get and pricey now because of this.

Basically, what is needed is above 60% proof for the sanitiser.

Ethanol is produced by distillation and can be achieved with sugar and yeast alone.

Now our drinks industry is shut down, can all the distilling houses in Ireland not be tasked With production of high proof ethanol for use in sanitisers?

Or maybe it is already happening.

There was a thing on Radio One this morning. Irish Distillers (I think) and some others are doing exactly that.

Is this having any affect on the postal service so far? It just occured to me that I haven't had a single bit of mail in probably a week.

Of course this is probably coincidence but with my atm card set to expire next month, I could - in a worse case scenario - find myself with no atm access or unable to pay for items with said card. And that would not be good.

AllGunsBlazing wrote: »

Is this having any affect on the postal service so far? It just occured to me that I haven't had a single bit of mail in probably a week.

Of course this is probably coincidence but with my atm card set to expire next month, I could - in a worse case scenario - find myself with no atm access or unable to pay for items with said card. And that would not be good.

still getting my mail and the postman wearing gloves.

davedanon wrote: »

Amazing how a species-threatening virus still isn't enough to knock some people off their hobbyhorses, isn't it?

This virus is serious and we should take all precautions as we're doing but please stop calling it species threatening.

The mortality rates are nowhere near that.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

It says that each test swab costs 15 euro...

15 * roughly 5 million people = 75 million euro to test everyone in the country.

That's a lot money obviously, but it might actually be doable if we could get our hands on that many test kits.

Or perhaps we could re-purpose one of the big pharmaceutical plants on the island, and turn it into a giant Covid 19 test swab production facility temporarily?

I've actually always thought asymptomatics were responsible for spreading this thing... that is the only thing that really explains the the rapid infection rate. If you had a virus that pretty much made anyone who got it severely sick, like ebola etc... this is much easier to identify and isolate cases and stop the rapid spread.

Given the economic consequences which are already at play and the much worse ones which are in the way, 75 million euros is small change. But I assume this is supply isn't ellastic and also 15 euros is the current cost just for the swab (not the rest of the logistics around mass testing). So the equation probably isn't just a matter of 15 euros multiplied by population to be tested.

BluePlanet wrote: »

Viral shedding.
The science is still being determined.
But there are some studies that indicate the most viral shedding occurs in the first week.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-most-contagious-before-during-first-week-symptoms

Thanks for that, the info seems to be conflicting which is why I was asking. Here's a piece from within that article too:

Other studies also suggest that people with very mild or asymptomatic infections don’t shed as much virus and aren’t as likely to infect other people as people with more severe cases

So how is possible that it could be most infectious before symptoms show but that others who have an asymptomatic response have a lower shedding rate?

sadie1502 wrote: »

What. Its not a target. Its a worst case scenario. They don't know. They are hoping with physical distancing this won't be the outcome.

It's their projection.

SuspectZero wrote: »

Question someone might be able to shed some light on. There has been a lot of talk about asypmtomatic carriers and I believe the main form of transmission is through aerosol(coughing, sneezing etc) but I've also been reading from legitimate Government and medical sources that exposure requires 10 minutes within 6 feet radius of a coughing infected person to transmit(much like the flu). There is much lower risk of getting it through contact of surfaces and touch so how exactly are asymptomatic people transmitting the virus(when they dont have symptoms like coughing) and spreading the virus in the air? Would it be safe to assume that infection rates would be much lower in asymptomatic people?

Say the average infection rate of each carrier is 3.5 people, Is it possible that symptomatic people could be responsible for a much higher rate like 6.2 and asymptomatic people with a much lower rate like .8 as an example to illustrate the point?

Hey there. There arent clear answers to your questions but let me share what my searching on this has found.

The virus is spread through inhalation of water particles with the virus in them. Thats most usually from a cough or sneeze because thats a pretty explosive spray, right! But the same particles of vapour come out from breathing, sighing, etc.

The virus is also spread through touch. Now, its not absorbed by the skin, lets be clear. You have to get it into your nose, eyes or mouth. Thats its transmission route. Most of the time that happens from you touching something that has the virus on it, and then touching your face.
This could be a surface or another persons hand. They might not even be infected, they could just have shook hands with an infected person.
The key point here is that you need to touch your face to get it inside you before it can infect you.


10 minutes isnt a time limit. Its a probability thing. If you leave someones company after 9 minutes, you arent safe. You could catch this from someone who is infected in a moment, its just that that isnt *likely*. The longer you hang out in an infected persons company the higher that likelihood.

The research on asymptomatic people isnt very good, for obvious reasons... they are hard to find. There is some evidence that people cast off more of the virus earlier in the infection (called "shedding"). This might explain why they are infectious even when not coughing, but as I said above, coughing isnt the only route. So no, it seems like infection rates are not significantly lower in asymptomatic people probably because of thes two things cancelling each other out.

The infection rate, ie the number of people who one individual infects *on average* is called the R0 (r-nought), seems to be about 2.2 in COVID. Thats actually not that crazy high (measles for example has an R0 of 16ish). But we have no built in immunity to this thing so every jump for it, is into a victim with no defence. Measles (on the other hand) jumps to people who are immune all the time (GET YOUR KIDS VACCINATED!).

Its quite possible that there is variance in the population making up that number, it may be that older people shed less or men shed more than women, we just dont know. (And those are just examples I made up).

Boggles wrote: »

It's their projection.

An unmitigated projection.