Covid19 Part XVI- 21,983 in ROI (1,339 deaths) 3,881 in NI (404 deaths)(05/05)Read OP

Stheno · 04-05-2020 02:13AM

fritzelly wrote: »

Wasn't having a go at you, just airing my thoughts

Time will tell with antibody testing

Xertz · 04-05-2020 02:15AM

Miike wrote: »

SARS-CoV-2 is very obvious in patients with severe illness in imaging studies. The CT would have showed bilateral ground glass and consolidative pulmonary opacities.

Out of my own geeky curiosity, I would still like to have an antibody test whenever they become available.

Ficheall · 04-05-2020 02:16AM

Well, I had Covid-19 back in 2016.. :rolleyes:

fritzelly · 04-05-2020 02:18AM

Stheno wrote: »

Time will tell with antibody testing

Could be a long while before they even know how long the antibodies survive - haven't seen any research on follow ups to recovered patients

But lets hope a very long time

shaveAbullock · 04-05-2020 02:19AM

fritzelly wrote: »

Could be a long while before they even know how long the antibodies survive - haven't seen any research on follow ups to recovered patients

But lets hope a very long time

That's just it. Looking at other coronavirus it could be only a few months or it could be a few years.

I wonder how long it will before they know.

fritzelly · 04-05-2020 02:22AM

Xertz wrote: »

Out of my own geeky curiosity, I would still like to have an antibody test whenever they become available.

So would I, be happier knowing I've had it and have some immunity hopefully.
Never had any symptoms bar one day with a bit of an headache and a bit of a sore throat for about 24 hours (about 2 weeks after the first case here) - if that was it then I can thank the gods I beat it easily

Strazdas · 04-05-2020 02:25AM

fritzelly wrote: »

It seems a lot of people are trying to convince themselves they all had this in Nov/Dec/Jan
There is just no justification for it
Some strange flu like virus that flu tests showed negative for then some scientist somewhere in the world would have spotted it - you don't just have people ending up in hospital because of pneumonia and all tests are negative so you just say ah well next patient

Just going by the number of people on this thread if it was coronavirus then it would have been rampant thru the country and hospitals should have been overloaded - but they weren't

As for the other poster worrying about having spread it to here colleague - as Dr Holohan says, no blame for spreading it can be put on anyone, it like most viruses are easily spreadable. You could spread flu to someone and it kills them but if they didn't catch off you they could have caught it off someone else.

I was reading that scientists in the UK had retroactively tested samples taken in January and couldn't find any trace of the virus. It seems to be an urban myth that everyone had it a few months ago - none of this would tie in with the current scenario of people being in ICU and dying in large numbers.

2smiggy · 04-05-2020 02:25AM

Xertz wrote: »

No offence but, how the hell would you get *all* the ICU staff in Europe to do that. You’re talking about tens of thousands of hospitals and hundreds of thousands of staff. They’re not going to keep something like that a secret. It’s an impossible and ludicrous suggestion.

They’re not even all hospitals run by the same owners / management. Most EU countries, including Ireland, have public systems with a range of public and private providers and hospitals. Many EU countries have more of a universal public health insurance model than a direct provision one like the NHS.

If you’d an outbreak in hospitals you could count to 10 by the time it would be alerted to health agencies that track it and you would have had it in the media by lunch time. This is Europe, not China. There isn’t an ability or desire to do coverups like that.

If SARS-CoV-2 was in Europe or North America late last year on a small scale, it would have had to be going unnoticed and being misidentified as flu and generic viral pneumonia.

It's obvious, 5G was controlling them

fritzelly · 04-05-2020 02:29AM

2smiggy wrote: »

It's obvious, 5G was controlling them

Yep, the truth is here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QtGSw7anlI

Xertz · 04-05-2020 02:30AM

It most likely was flu but, given this is a new disease and symptoms seem to be varied in intensity who knows?
We probably are only really starting to get a sense of the symptoms and experience people who’ve had milder reactions and fought it off.

The hospital cases would be the extreme end of the scale and that’s where most of the research would probably be from.

It’s as GPs and specialist community clinics start to gather more and more data from cases they’ve encountered that you start to get a real sense of what the typical low to mid range experience is like.

That’s why I wouldn’t jump to a conclusion that what I had was COVID-19, but I also wouldn’t entirely rule it out entire. it would just be very interesting to see.

shaveAbullock · 04-05-2020 02:34AM

Xertz wrote: »

It most likely was flu but, given this is a new disease and symptoms seem to be varied in intensity who knows?
We probably are only really starting to get a sense of the symptoms and experience people who’ve had milder reactions and fought it off.

The hospital cases would be the extreme end of the scale and that’s where most of the research would probably be from.

It’s as GPs and specialist community clinics start to gather more and more data from cases they’ve encountered that you start to get a real sense of what the typical low to mid range experience is like.

That’s why I wouldn’t jump to a conclusion that what I had was COVID-19, but I also wouldn’t entirely rule it out entire. it would just be very interesting to see.

When it is known that a large number of the population contracted a strain of the flu that had particualy nasty systoms back in December, why would you even consider CODID-19?

Xertz · 04-05-2020 02:35AM

Strazdas wrote: »

I was reading that scientists in the UK had retroactively tested samples taken in January and couldn't find any trace of the virus. It seems to be an urban myth that everyone had it a few months ago - none of this would tie in with the current scenario of people being in ICU and dying in large numbers.

Except for the French retrospective analysis published this weekend that’s discovered in Paris in patients swabbed on 27 December. That’s been cited on major French news channels, not internet conspiracy sites.

https://www.francetvinfo.fr/sante/maladie/coronavirus/coronavirus-un-cas-de-covid-19-repertorie-en-france-des-le-27-decembre-affirme-le-chef-d-un-service-de-reanimation-de-seine-saint-denis_3946867.html

France Info TV is a public service tv station owned by Radio France, France Televisions / France Media Monde and l'institue national de l’audiovisuel. Basically French equivalent of BBC News 24 or RTE News.

Micky 32 · 04-05-2020 02:38AM

shaveAbullock wrote: »

When it is known that a large number of the population contracted a strain of the flu that had particualy nasty systoms back in December, why would you even consider CODID-19?

My father had a horrible dose of flu around December. Interestingly he had the flu vaccine and still got it.

fritzelly · 04-05-2020 02:38AM

Xertz wrote: »

Except for the French retrospective analysis published this weekend that’s discovered in Paris in patients swabbed on 27 December. That’s been cited on major French news channels, not internet conspiracy sites.

That's one patient out of all the samples tested - using boards.ie as a sample of Ireland, 10 million people had it here

owlbethere · 04-05-2020 02:39AM

Was this posted yet?

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3080750/coronavirus-attacks-lining-blood-vessels-all-over-body-swiss

This infection could be a blood disorder attacking blood vessels.

fritzelly · 04-05-2020 02:41AM

owlbethere wrote: »

Was this posted yet?

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3080750/coronavirus-attacks-lining-blood-vessels-all-over-body-swiss

This infection could be a blood disorder attacking blood vessels.

No more bad news please

Xertz · 04-05-2020 02:43AM

fritzelly wrote: »

That's one patient out of all the samples tested - using boards.ie as a sample of Ireland, 10 million people had it here

It was one positive in a group of 50 patients with pneumonia. The positive test was also retested to ensure it wasn’t a false positive.

The result has triggered wider research and analysis of other stored swabs.

Patients in December and January in France were not being tested for covid 19. One researcher was pursuing a retrospective analysis of older swabs.

France certainly has some of the world‘s leading virology labs and will definitely follow up by widening that study this week.

Turtwig · 04-05-2020 02:45AM

Xertz wrote: »

Except for the French retrospective analysis published this weekend that’s discovered in Paris in patients swabbed on 27 December. That’s been cited on major French news channels, not internet conspiracy sites.

https://www.francetvinfo.fr/sante/maladie/coronavirus/coronavirus-un-cas-de-covid-19-repertorie-en-france-des-le-27-decembre-affirme-le-chef-d-un-service-de-reanimation-de-seine-saint-denis_3946867.html

France Info TV is a public service tv station owned by Radio France, France Televisions / France Media Monde and l'institue national de l’audiovisuel. Basically French equivalent of BBC News 24 or RTE News.

Iirc a similar candidate was found in Valencia Spain and in California U.S both predating Italy. These cases including the one quoted wouldn't really be evidence of the high numbers of flu cases being coronavirus. They'd actually support the case that this virus initially spread slowly, invisibly and globally. Then like all exponential growths become more and more prevalent.

Micky 32 · 04-05-2020 02:50AM

fritzelly wrote: »

No more bad news please

Pinch of salt and all that, even though lots of posters on this thread can’t wait to post that bolloxology.

Xertz · 04-05-2020 02:57AM

Well it could mean that the seeds of a major spike which we saw in February/March were already in the community a couple of months earlier.

If for example it has a higher % of middling, mild or even almost asymptomatic cases, you could see how it suddenly mushroomed.

Also I wonder if the early cases could have been somewhat self-selecting mostly healthy people - those who are likely to have been on say far flung travel, business travellers, ski holiday types.

The people who seem to get the worst impact are also the people who are probably less likely to be out and about or globe trotting - if you’re very elderly or unwell, you’re not likely to be jetting off or mingling in offices, pubs, sports events etc

So I’m wondering if it’s possible there was an element of the first cases largely having hit people who were able to shake it off. Then as it became more established it ended up hitting far more vulnerable people and that’s where you got the explosive death tolls in elder care communities, etc etc

Hospitals and health systems wouldn’t really have noticed until you’d a very big spike in viral pneumonia cases that was above and beyond normal flu spikes.

So in Italy or Spain by the time they took action it was already too late. The U.K. and US both dithered and assumed it couldn’t get them because of largely all sorts of arrogance about health systems, exceptionalism and bonkers notions taken by political people or at least politicians picking the bits of science they liked.

The US and UK had both been ranked as 1 and 2 in most able to deal with a pandemic and look at how it actually panned out.

February 2020:

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/02/these-are-the-countries-best-prepared-for-health-emergencies/

Miike · 04-05-2020 03:07AM

Turtwig wrote: »

Iirc a similar candidate was found in Valencia Spain and in California U.S both predating Italy. These cases including the one quoted wouldn't really be evidence of the high numbers of flu cases being coronavirus. They'd actually support the case that this virus initially spread slowly, invisibly and globally. Then like all exponential growths become more and more prevalent.

And would also completely contradict the pathogenesis of this virus.

Xertz · 04-05-2020 03:11AM

That Global Health Security report actually ranked Germany very badly on its ability to control the spread of an outbreak and the U.K. and USA very highly. The reality was the complete opposite!

https://www.ghsindex.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/2019-Global-Health-Security-Index.pdf

See tables at the end of the PDF

Turtwig · 04-05-2020 03:11AM

I'm wondering the same re tourism. Ireland looks to have got heavily seeded from tourists returning home.

The U.S. And UK gutted their own defences over successive years. Furthermore, they elected incompetent leaders. Which does matter.The U.S. leaving the key positions vacant. That's before you get into the inequality problem. The U.S. was never going to fare well again any pandemic.

04-05-2020 03:13AM

Miike wrote: »

And would also completely contradict the pathogenesis of this virus.

Not really. An R0 of say 2 means one person arrives with it, a week later, 2 more have it, a week later, it's up to 8, then, 32 etc. (I just woke up so can't be bothered getting the right math.)

After a month, it's still not a crazy amount. Then it starts to balloon at some point and starts to find people's parents and all the vulnerable in society.

Think of it this way.. If you fold a piece of paper 42 times, if will be thick enough to reach the moon, but you certainly wouldn't imagine that happen after you've folded it seven times.

Same as the virus seven weeks in after the first infection arrives.. Numbers still relatively low with the majority having either no or mild symptoms. Maybe one or two people have developed pneumonia. Hospitals wouldn't think anything is up.

Turtwig · 04-05-2020 03:15AM

Miike wrote: »

And would also completely contradict the pathogenesis of this virus.

How?
Spreads slowly at first but growth rate is exponential.
20 to 50% of all cases asymptomatic.
.5% fatality rate
It would take several chains of transmissions before serious cases emerge.
Then boom! they're all over the place.

Xertz · 04-05-2020 03:22AM

Turtwig wrote: »

How?
Spreads slowly at first but growth rate is exponential.
20 to 50% of all cases asymptomatic.
.5% fatality rate
It would take several chains of transmissions before serious cases emerge.
Then boom! they're all over the place.

I’m speculating that we don’t know how many cases are asymptomatic because we seem to be only testing symptomatic cases based on triaging access to testing. That’s been the case here in Ireland and in almost all countries. I still don’t entirely understand the logic of it as I just can’t see how it could possibly give you any sense of how much of it is out there in the community.

If you take for example Ireland, the U.K. or USA, if you’re asymptomatic or even mildly symptomatic (and not even that mild) you would have never been tested or would have even been turned away from testing if you asked for one.

Yet we test people who plainly obviously have it based on symptoms.

To me that doesn’t make sense. Just assume the symptomatic people likely have it and use the testing resources to find the people who have it and are spreading it but aren’t aware of it.

Basically most countries are using tests to confirm that people who very very likely have it definitely have it.

I still cannot understand why we aren’t doing community sampling, even on a small sample representative basis.

Like we should have been testing community care patients and staff from the start and on a routine sampling basis as they were a vulnerable group who needed an alarm if an outbreak were happening.

It's fairly obvious to keep it down we will need widespread community testing, probably rapid self-testing (which as yet doesn't seem to exist anywhere in a reliable form) and so on, antibody testing and all of that is still weeks away at least.

timsey tiger · 04-05-2020 03:38AM

Xertz wrote: »

I’m speculating that we don’t know how many cases are asymptomatic because we seem to be only testing symptomatic cases based on triaging access to testing. That’s been the case here in Ireland and in almost all countries. I still don’t entirely understand the logic of it as I just can’t see how it could possibly give you any sense of how much of it is out there in the community.

If you take for example Ireland, the U.K. or USA, if you’re asymptomatic or even mildly symptomatic (and not even that mild) you would have never been tested or would have even been turned away from testing if you asked for one.

Yet we test people who plainly obviously have it based on symptoms.

To me that doesn’t make sense. Just assume the symptomatic people likely have it and use the testing resources to find the people who have it and are spreading it but aren’t aware of it.

Basically most countries are using tests to confirm that people who very very likely have it definitely have it.

I still cannot understand why we aren’t doing community sampling, even on a small sample representative basis.

Like we should have been testing community care patients and staff from the start and on a routine sampling basis as they were a vulnerable group who needed an alarm if an outbreak were happening.

I guess you could estimate, how many asymptomatic cases are out there, by looking at the level of community transmission new symptomatic cases that are arising, provided you have a handle on what the R value is.Prob. kind of circular though.

Miike · 04-05-2020 03:42AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Not really. An R0 of say 2 means one person arrives with it, a week later, 2 more have it, a week later, it's up to 8, then, 32 etc. (I just woke up so can't be bothered getting the right math.)

After a month, it's still not a crazy amount. Then it starts to balloon at some point and starts to find people's parents and all the vulnerable in society.

Think of it this way.. If you fold a piece of paper 42 times, if will be thick enough to reach the moon, but you certainly wouldn't imagine that happen after you've folded it seven times.

Same as the virus seven weeks in after the first infection arrives.. Numbers still relatively low with the majority having either no or mild symptoms. Maybe one or two people have developed pneumonia. Hospitals wouldn't think anything is up.

The R0 of this virus was not 2 without control measures in place. If the virus was here in an unidentified and uncontrolled state the R0 is much higher. R0 is not a constant.

Turtwig wrote: »

How?
Spreads slowly at first but growth rate is exponential.
20 to 50% of all cases asymptomatic.
.5% fatality rate
It would take several chains of transmissions before serious cases emerge.
Then boom! they're all over the place.

We don't know how many people are asymptomatic. We have rough estimates that none of the research agrees on and as such cannot remotely being to calculate the true fatality rate of the virus. Also, it doesn't take several chains of transmission for a virus to become lethal. Cases of pneumonia of unknown origin would be subject to heavy retrospective scrutiny at this point, especially once this was declared a PHEIC and then again when declared a pandemic.

Xertz · 04-05-2020 03:43AM

timsey tiger wrote: »

I guess you could estimate, how many asymptomatic cases are out there, by looking at the level of community transmission new symptomatic cases that are arising, provided you have a handle on what the R value is.Prob. kind of circular though.

That's what I do not get though. I've worked on quite a few academic projects over the years that involved population based statistical analysis in a non-medical context and you would absolutely never do it this way.

You're taking an unrepresentative sample that has enormous selection bias.

It just makes no sense to me, other than they're using the tests as a diagnostic tool.

It would seem to me the priority ought to have been to find the likely clusters and community transmission paths and so on very rapidly, not use tests where you could probably have used say CT scan diagnosis based on lung damage.

I'm beginning to wonder if the WHO advice is perhaps taking all of its cues from their experiences with Ebola in Africa? It seems to almost assume that there's no access to advanced diagnostics, other than lab tests.

It makes sense as the WHO has to give broad advice that's suited to lowest common denominator in terms of health systems.

Miike · 04-05-2020 03:45AM

Xertz wrote: »

That's what I do not get though. I've worked on quite a few academic projects over the years that involved population based statistical analysis in a non-medical context and you would absolutely never do it this way.

You're taking an unrepresentative sample that has enormous selection bias.

It just makes no sense to me, other than they're using the tests as a diagnostic tool.

It would seem to me the priority ought to have been to find the likely clusters and community transmission paths and so on very rapidly, not use tests where you could probably have used say CT scan diagnosis based on lung damage.

I'm beginning to wonder if the WHO advice is perhaps taking all of its cues from their experiences with Ebola in Africa? It seems to almost assume that there's no access to advanced diagnostics, other than lab tests.

At this point it's too late. It's a waste of time waiting for CT results to show abnormal findings.

We are testing people to find as many people +ve as possible, with the caveat the higher risk population get priority. It is a diagnostic test with the idea of limiting spread in severely at risk groups. This is why we have testing criteria. We aren't at the point of accurately analysing the spread of the virus with 100% accuracy. If we took this approach then the people currently rated high priority or at risk would have dropped dead and spread the virus like wild fire without getting a lab confirmed diagnosis.

The measures of telling people isolate with symptoms spells this out. We currently can not test everyone who wants a test or run tests willy nilly. Otherwise we end up sending 10s of thousands of tests to Germany and causing huge delays.

Covid19 Part XVI- 21,983 in ROI (1,339 deaths) 3,881 in NI (404 deaths)(05/05)Read OP

Comments