Covid-19 / SARS-Cov2 - naučne/medicinske informacije i analize

[Tomiprunet]

Pa lepo je @ciao pisala kako , kad i kome se daje Hlorokin. 

Sinoc opet bilo na tv u fr nesto oko hlorokina i dr raoulta. Jos ce ga na kraju uhapsiti i zatvoriti sto je koristio hlorokin za lecenje pacijenata.

[wwww]

 

COVID-19 in Japan

Relative to the United States and Europe, the number of infections and deaths in Japan has been small

At the same time, the number of deaths in many other parts of East Asia has also been low. Taiwan, in particular, has succeeded in keeping the number of fatal cases to a minimum

Reasons for Taiwan’s success:

• •As a consequence of its experience with SARS and other contagious disease outbreaks,Taiwan’s level of preparedness was higher than Japan’s
• •Taiwan has fewer visitors from the United States and Europe than Japan does, and it was quicker to restrict inbound travel in response to the pandemic. (Feb. 6: banned visitors from mainland China. March 19: banned entry of all foreign travelers)

*Japan began restricting visitors from Hubei Province, China, on Feb. 1, but it remained open to travelers from Italy, Germany, France and most other parts of Europe until March 27. It banned entry from the United States, Britain and the rest of China on April 3

 

 

Why has the number of COVID-19 cases and deaths been comparatively low in Japan?

 

A number of reasons have been suggested for Japan’s relatively small number of infections and deaths. The most widely discussed include:

• •Easy access to medical care under the national health insurance system
• •Generally high quality of medical care, even in rural areas, with hospitals supported by a national network of local public health centers (hokenjo)
• •The Japanese public’s high standard of hygiene, willingness to comply with government requests, and other cultural traits and lifestyle habits

At the same time, two important factors have not received due attention. They are:

1. 1.Early detection of transmission waves
2. 2.Cluster-based approach

 

Early detection and delay of outbreak peak

Japan detected the first wave of COVID-19 infections from China at an early stage, leading to a more gradual transmission curve that allowed Japan to delay the peak of the outbreak and to buy time to prepare. The US and Europe, by contrast, suffered rapid early surges

 

 

 

The “Three Cs”

Based on analysis of the shared characteristics of clusters, Japan developed a concept called the “ThreeCs” to denote high-risk places and situations

• • Closed spaces
• • Crowded places
• • Close-contact settings

The public was asked to avoid the Three-Cs; awareness of the term became widespread

The concept has been expanded to “Three Cs Plus,”which includes behaviors suchas loud talking and singing

 

State of emergency

A monitoring system using indicators such as the virus’ reproduction number had been put in place to detect early signs of a surge in infections

A state of emergency was declared on April 7 for three reasons

• •Early signs of a surge in infections were detected, through close monitoring
• •Strain on the health care system was growing
• •The cluster-based approach was reaching its limits (human resources, etc.) due to increased case volume

Public cooperation was vital. Changes in behavior helped stem the tide of new cases

The effective reproduction number remained below 1 during the state of emergency

 

 

Testing in Japan

Compared with other countries, Japan has performed fewer PCR tests for the virus. Its testing has focused on high-risk groups and people associated with suspected clusters

At the peak of the outbreak in early April, timely testing was not always available to those who needed it, due to limited capacity.This was an issue thatJapan is now addressing

Despite such issues, Japan’s testing infrastructure has been adequate from a public health perspective

• •Japan’s testing has been appropriate to the scale of the outbreak. It has conducted more tests per infection and per death than many other countries
• •With the exception of the peak period of the outbreak, the percentage of positive results has been lower than in other countries. Low positive rates are an indicator of sufficient testing, according to the WHO

 

Testing going forward

As Japan eases restrictions and seeks to resume social and economic activity, while preparing for possible new outbreaks, the following goals should be considered in testing policy:

• •Laboratory testing that identifies cases at an early stage(prodrome and mild symptoms), to facilitate timely medical treatment and the prevention of further infections
• •Faster laboratory testing with shorter waits between consultations and tests
• •Use of antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs). RDTs are less sensitive than PRC tests, but they are quicker, easier and can identify high viral loads, which may help detect especially infectious cases. RDTs could be particularly useful for preventing outbreaks in hospitals, nursing homes and other high-risk settings

 

Conclusion

• Citizens’ cooperation has been vital to slowing the spread of the virus while preventing the healthcare system from becoming overwhelmed
• A focused, cluster-based response and avoidance of the “Three Cs” helped control the spread of COVID-19, especially in the early stage of the outbreak
• This is no time for complacency. Latent transmission chains can surface at any time, and new types of clusters could develop in the future
• The decline in the number of new cases should be taken as an opportunity to prepare for a potential next wave
• Japan has learned a lot, and while there is still much to understand, it should share its experiences with the world and actively participate in the global pandemic response

 

https://www.mhlw.go.jp/content/10900000/000635891.pdf

 

https://www.mhlw.go.jp/content/10900000/000615287.pdf

 

Guidelines for lifting state of emergency:

https://www.mhlw.go.jp/content/10900000/000635890.pdf

 

 

 

Edited June 4, 2020 by wwww

[wwww]

A very (!) Astonishing result, but shown in a robust study. Blood group A about 50% higher risk of severe course Covid-19. Twice the risk as blood group 0. Blood group B in between. Since immune response depends on blood type, that makes sense

[wwww]

This good study from Sydney suggests that Covid-19 is much more contagious in autumn and winter due to less moisture (not cold). The cause is the drier air. It reduces drops and aerosols. There is also an interior stay

Edited June 4, 2020 by wwww

[NMX]

Kembridž analitika u novom ruhu....jbt...

 

Quote

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/03/covid-19-surgisphere-who-world-health-organization-hydroxychloroquine

 

Quote

Surgisphere: governments and WHO changed Covid-19 policy based on suspect data from tiny US company

Surgisphere, whose employees appear to include a sci-fi writer and adult content model, provided database behind Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine hydroxychloroquine studies

The World Health Organization and a number of national governments have changed their Covid-19 policies and treatments on the basis of flawed data from a little-known US healthcare analytics company, also calling into question the integrity of key studies published in some of the world’s most prestigious medical journals.

A Guardian investigation can reveal the US-based company Surgisphere, whose handful of employees appear to include a science fiction writer and an adult-content model, has provided data for multiple studies on Covid-19 co-authored by its chief executive, but has so far failed to adequately explain its data or methodology.

Data it claims to have legitimately obtained from more than a thousand hospitals worldwide formed the basis of scientific articles that have led to changes in Covid-19 treatment policies in Latin American countries. It was also behind a decision by the WHO and research institutes around the world to halt trials of the controversial drug hydroxychloroquine. On Wednesday, the WHO announced those trials would now resume.

Two of the world’s leading medical journals – the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine – published studies based on Surgisphere data. The studies were co-authored by the firm’s chief executive, Sapan Desai.

 

[wwww]

Large cohort studies worldwide will examine long-term damage from Covid-19. An important reason for caution is that long-term consequences such as increased dementia or the risk of depression can only be recognized in about 10 years. 2002 SarsCov-1 also had long-term consequences

 

[wwww]

https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-29548/v1

Clustering and superspreading potential of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections in Hong Kong

Figure 1. Epidemic curve of daily cases of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in Hong Kong by symptom onset date and coloured by cluster category (N=1,038). Important travel and community health interventions are indicated with arrows. Asymptomatic cases are included here by date of confirmation.

 

Figure 2. (A) Empirical serial distribution of SARS-CoV-2 infections in Hong Kong among symptomatic infector-infectee pairs with fitted normal (solid line) and lognormal (dotted) distributions. The lognormal distribution was fitted excluding observations ≤0 days. (B) Empirical offspring distribution of SARS-CoV-2 among local and imported COVID-19 cases in Hong Kong (excluding clusters of cases where infections had been acquired overseas) and a fitted negative binomial distribution with R=0.58 and k=0.45.

 

Figure 3. Local chains of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in Hong Kong initiated by another local case or an imported case. (A) Transmission network of the “bar and band” cluster of cases. The source case of the initial exposure could not be determined. (B) Transmission network associated with a single wedding exposure subsequently linked to a preceding social gathering and local source exposure. (C) Transmission network associated with a Buddhist temple in Hong Kong. Primary cases report multiple distinct exposures to the temple over the course of many days. It is suspected that an asymptomatic monk at the temple may have been the source (indicated by the pink circle) however it cannot be known if they were exposed to another case, possibly an environmental exposure. (D) All other clusters of SARS-CoV-2 infections initiated by local and imported cases where the source and transmission chain could be determined. Footnote 1: An asymptomatic employee at one of the bars was placed in quarantine on 26 March following recognition of the cluster and tested positive on 4 April. Was transferred to hospital for observation but did not develop symptoms. This employee’s wife developed symptoms on 1 April and was confirmed to have SARS-CoV-2 infection on 6 April.

 

 

 

 

Figure 4. (A) Distribution of delays in days from symptom onset to isolation of cases by cluster size. (B) Delays from symptom onset to isolation of index cases by the number of secondary cases per index coloured by site of transmission (Dark Blue: Family, Red: Social, Green: Local travel, Light Blue: Work)

 

Quote

Overall there is substantial potential for SSEs (superspreading events) in COVID-19, but less so than for SARS and MERS. In the absence of non-pharmaceutical interventions such as physical distancing implemented in Hong Kong, the potential for SSEs is likely greater than observed in our study. Assuming local elimination is not possible, disease control efforts should focus on rapid tracing and quarantine of confirmed contacts, along with the implementation of physical distancing policies or closures targeting high-risk social exposures such as bars, nightclubs and restaurants to prevent the occurrence of SSEs. Given the long right-hand tail of the distribution of individual reproductive numbers (Figure 2B), preventing SSEs would have a considerable effect in reducing the overall reproductive number. In lieu of an effective vaccine, these results have significant implications for the control of COVID-19 and public health measures such as physical distancing and the relaxation of lockdowns around the world.

 

Edited June 4, 2020 by wwww

[ciao]

Nastavak u vezi rada u The Lancet-u o  hydroxicloroquine-u i "cuvene" firme Surgisphere koja je skupila podatke (a do pre par meseci nije ni postojala) : tri od cetiri autora rada su se povukli, rekli da ustvari podaci koje su dobili od Surgisphere  ne garantuju pouzdanost i istinitost objavljenih resultata i rad je definitivno povucen iz casopisa "The Lancet"

 

https://www.francetvinfo.fr/sante/maladie/coronavirus/hydroxychloroquine-trois-des-auteurs-de-l-etude-de-the-lancet-se-retractent-et-demandent-le-retrait-de-l-article_3995453.html

 

Blamaza za The Lancet kao casopis, a isto tako i za WHO koja je istog sekunda otprilike zabranila upotrebu hydroxichloroqina (  pre neki dan je vratila dozvolu za upotrebu). Zna se da je The Lancet finansiran velikim delom od strane farmaceutske industrije ali ipak se ocekuje da se radovi recenziraju kao sto treba - ovaj sasvim sigurno nije smeo da bude objavljen

Edited June 4, 2020 by ciao

[Laki21]

https://www.clinicallabmanager.com/news/first-human-trial-of-covid-19-vaccines-finds-it-is-safe-induces-rapid-immune-response-22862

[Klotzen]

Quote

Savet za parove u jeku pandemije

Studija univerziteta Harvard: Nositi zaštitne maske tokom seksa

Studija Univerziteta Harvard upozorava parove da bi tokom seksa trebalo da nose zaštitne maske kao preventivna mera zaštite u okolnostima aktuelne pandemije.

 

Apstinencija i masturbacija smatraju se seksualnim aktivnostima „niskog rizika“, dok je seks sa ljudima iz drugih domaćinstava naveden kao „rizičan“.

https://www.danas.rs/svet/studija-univerziteta-harvard-nositi-zastitne-maske-tokom-seksa/

 

Samo mi nije jasno zašto su apsitnencija i mastrubacija niskog rizika ? Zar ne bi to trebalo da je 100% sigurno ?

 

🙂

 

[ciao]

Poceli holandjani veliku studiju (posle manje indikativne) o vezi vitamina K i tezem obliku korone - ideja je da vitamin K sprecava zgrusavanje krvi a zna se sada da je veliki problem embolija u plucima. U svakom slucaju preporucuju se namirnice koje imaju veliku kolicinu vitamina K a to su : zeleno povrce (brokoli, spanac, zelena zalata...) i sir.

 

Ovo ne vazi za ljude koji imaju problem sa koagulacijom i uzimaju lekove !

[Laki21]

6 hours ago, Klotzen said:

 

Samo mi nije jasno zašto su apsitnencija i mastrubacija niskog rizika ? Zar ne bi to trebalo da je 100% sigurno ?

 

🙂

 

 

Jesu li ovi sa Harvarda naglasili koji model je najbolji?

[wwww]

Well done study that shows the outstanding value of masks. Masks are and remain the underestimated protection in the fight against the pandemic. The success of China and (late) NYC would be unthinkable without a mask.

[wwww]

First large study (UK) on lifestyle and Covid-19 confirmed: smokers, ex-smokers, people who abstain from sports and those who are overweight are at higher risk of developing a severe course. Even without previous illnesses. The overweight unsporting smoker has 4 times the risk.

 

[wwww]

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.2020.0376

A modelling framework to assess the likely effectiveness of facemasks in combination with ‘lock-down’ in managing the COVID-19 pandemic

Figure 1. Distribution of asymptomatic and symptomatic infectiousness of COVID-19-infected individuals, used in the branching process [39]. Horizontal lines show the average infectiousness per time unit for the asymptomatic stage (orange) and the symptomatic stage (red).

 

 

 

[wwww]

https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-should-we-aim-for-herd-immunity-like-sweden-b1de3348e88b

 

Coronavirus: Should We Aim for Herd Immunity Like Sweden?

Quote

Today, we’re going to use a lot of data and charts to answer these questions:

1. What is happening in Sweden?
2. How bad is the virus, really? How many people does it infect? Hurt? Kill?
3. Who does it affect? Can we just protect the weak?
4. What’s best for the economy?

Here’s what you’re going to learn:

• Sweden is suffering tremendously in cases and deaths. Yet few people have been infected yet. They are a long way from Herd Immunity.
• Between 0.5% to 1.5% of infected die from the coronavirus.
• Left uncontrolled, it can kill between 0.4% and 1% of the entire population.
• Many more suffer conditions we don’t yet understand.
• Unfortunately, that death and sickness toll is far from having bought us Herd Immunity anywhere in the world.
• Only protecting those most at risk sounds great. It’s a fantasy today.
• Even if Sweden’s economy has remained mostly open, it has still suffered as much as others.
• From now on, it might start doing worse.
• Sweden now has regrets. But not enough. It can control the virus without a lockdown if it acknowledges its mistakes and takes the right measures.
• Other countries, like the US or the Netherlands, are toying with a Herd Immunity strategy. It will only cause more economic loss and death.

 

 

Quote

Belgium is counting approximately twice as many deaths as most other countries: Half of the country’s deaths are in care homes, but of those only 5% have been tested. 95% have simply been assumed to be caused by the coronavirus. It also suffered from a massive initial peak that has since been controlled.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 16, 2020 by wwww

[wwww]

Quote

This shows the percentage of tests that turn out positive. The lower that percentage, the more confident you are that you’re counting all cases.

Sweden is testing 10 times less than its neighbors, because it doesn’t really care about total cases, since it’s not trying to eliminate the epidemic. As a result, they’re undercounting cases.

Even then, cases are only as good as the official records. A more reliable data point is deaths.

 

Quote

This is how Sweden’s official epidemiologists summarized their strategy:

“It’s impossible to stop the coronavirus. Only Herd Immunity will make that happen. Lockdowns won’t. So let’s flatten the curve to avoid the collapse of the healthcare system, but that’s it. If we lock down the economy, it will be costly and will only postpone the inevitable. Meanwhile, let’s protect older people, since they are the ones dying. The virus is not that bad anyways.”

Some people call this a mitigation strategy, because it reduces the cases so that they don’t overwhelm the healthcare system, but doesn’t go beyond that to completely eliminate most cases. Others label this strategy Herd Immunity, because of the side effect: The belief is that the epidemic will only stop once enough people have been infected and develop immunity against it. For the coronavirus, it is assumed that the moment arrives when around 65% of people have been infected.

Swedish officials don’t like the Herd Immunity label, but it’s useful since it’s memorable, everybody calls it that way, and it does not hide the nasty end result. So I’ll use that.

There are many statements in the description of the strategy from above. Some are true. For example, the measures it declared (banning large gatherings, asking people to work from home, closing high-schools and universities) were enough to flatten the curve. The government also increased the capacity of the healthcare system, which contributed to keeping it working despite the weight of coronavirus cases.

Here are the statements that deserve scrutiny:

1. The coronavirus is unstoppable.
2. The virus is not that bad.
3. We can protect the elderly from it.
4. It’s better for the economy to just flatten the curve while the virus spreads through the population than it is to implement the Hammer and the Dance strategy, a heavy lockdown followed by a reopening of the economy.

 

 

 

 

Quote

Is the Coronavirus Unstoppable?

Does the Hammer Work?

Anders Tegnell, Sweden’s head epidemiologist, had stated that there is not enough scientific evidence that lockdowns work, a statement that has been echoed by other Swedish government epidemiologists.

“Closedown, lockdown, closing borders — nothing has a historical scientific basis, in my view. We have looked at a number of European Union countries to see whether they have published any analysis of the effects of these measures before they were started and we saw almost none.”—Anders Tegnell, Sweden’s head epidemiologist.

If I were a Swedish politician and I heard that, I would have instantly started worrying. First, the evidence of that analysis has not been shared, as far as I could find. More importantly, this shows the scientists don’t understand what it’s like to manage in the real world.

Were the scientists waiting for a peer-reviewed scientific study unequivocally proving that lockdowns work? This is not a lab. That doesn’t exist. It was impossible to have a clean analysis with a completely new virus.

 

Quote

The world is messy. Data is imperfect. Are politicians supposed to wait until all evidence is perfect? No. That’s too late. They need to piece together all the data they have and take action, even if it’s not perfect. Because perfect is too late and gets you killed.

 

And yet… There was evidence, based on everything that had happened in Wuhan, South Korea, Taiwan, Italy…

Since then, plenty of countries have acted on that evidence, and their performance is accumulating. So what did the available evidence indicate?

 

 

ima i Srbija!

[wwww]

 

 

New York was narrowly trailing Spain in cases. But it took seven more days (March 22nd) for the NY government to order the Hammer than the Spanish government (March15th). As a result, the New York curve blew past Spain’s, and Spain ended up with 235k cases by May 20th vs 360k for New York. This is despite the fact that citizens had already started limiting their movement in both places:

 

This chart is telling us two things:

1. Citizens and businesses follow the news and take some actions independently from government requests. These actions can affect the transmission rate of the virus.
2. That is not enough. Spain and NY lowered their mobility around the same time, but that was only partially reflected in the curve. The application of Hammers from governments came later, and the reduction in cases came two weeks after the Hammer like clockwork.

The US is a near-perfect place to study the impact of lockdowns, because there was no decision to lock the country down at a federal level, and both states and counties had to make that decision. That leaves thousands of counties to compare lockdowns vs. no lockdowns. What can we learn from that?

 

The orange line shows how the cases evolved in counties that ordered a lockdown vs. those that didn’t compared to counties with no lockdown. At day zero, they’re made equal. Before that, it’s a bit all over the place. But after the lockdown, the counties with lockdowns start having fewer and fewer cases compared to counties that did not lock down. By the 1st week, the number of cases is down by 30%. After two weeks, it’s 40%. After three weeks, it’s 49%.

Does the Dance Work?

 

Both the Hammer and the Dance can work.

Yet some people have claimed that the peak and drop of coronavirus cases were not due to the Hammer. They say it doesn’t have any effect. Instead, they argue that outbreaks happen in all countries sooner or later and that, like clockwork, the epidemic dies down after a few weeks, whether there were lockdowns or not. In science, if you want to prove a theory, you make predictions based on it and you see if they turn out to be true. Here are some predictions from this theory:

1. Since all countries have a similar case curve going up and down independent from any Hammer, there should be an outbreak in all countries. Countries without a heavy outbreak are impossible.
2. Conversely, since all countries have a similar case curve going up and down independent from any Hammer, all countries should be seeing their caseload go down.
3. Countries with similar initial conditions should see similar outbreaks, regardless of whether they applied Hammers.
4. Conversely, countries with different initial situations should see different outbreaks, regardless of whether they applied Hammers.

The first prediction is false. Not all countries have had an outbreak. Under that reasoning, Taiwan, Hong Kong or Vietnam are not possible: They didn’t suffer any outbreak. The countries that were prepared — the ones that knew how to dance right away — did not have outbreaks.

Not only that, but this was known back in March, since only one Chinese region really suffered an outbreak:

If lockdowns don’t matter, how come all the Chinese provinces that locked down early, alerted by the Hubei situation, were able to dodge an outbreak? How come the only region that had an outbreak is the one that couldn’t lock down on time?

The second prediction—“All countries that have had outbreaks should have been back to normal by now”—is false. We saw that hasn’t happened in Sweden. We can easily find other countries in all continents:

We previously saw many countries that have successfully applied the Hammer. Within 2–3 weeks they start flattening the curve, and with a few more weeks, they get it close to 0. But we can also find dozens of countries across continents where that is not the case: The number of daily coronavirus infections continues at a high and stable level for weeks (like in Sweden or the US), keeps growing (like in Moldova, Algeria, Argentina or Russia), or goes down before going back up (like in Azerbaijan, Jordan, Iran or Malta). If the curve was independent from the measures, you’d see all countries going down. That doesn’t happen.

The third prediction—“Countries with similar initial conditions should have similar case curves, independent from the Hammers they applied”—is false. We saw that Norway, Denmark, Austria, Finland an Czechia started similar to Sweden, and yet went through different paths. We also saw how New York and Spain were very close in initial cases, so their curves should have gone down at the same time. But that’s not what we saw. New York’s case curve took longer and went higher. Same thing for US counties.

The fourth prediction — “Countries with different initial conditions should have different case curves, independent from the Hammers they applied” — is false. There should be some variability across countries in the bending of the curve, but daily cases nearly always go down two weeks after the Hammer is applied, as we saw for places like China, France, Italy, Spain or New York.

The coronavirus is not unstoppable. There’s a clear way to stop it for many countries: the Hammer and the Dance.

 

 

 

[wwww]

Quote

So what was Sweden’s official stance throughout all of this? On April 30th, the country released the results of a test that found that 2.5% of Swedes had been infected by April 3rd. An official Swedish model projected that 26% of the population would be infected one month later, by May 1st. Prof. Johan Giesecke, an advisor to the government and former head epidemiologist of the country, thought mass testing would find 50% of the country infected. A key modeler for the country, Tom Britton, agreed. That would have been good news: It would have proven that the Herd Immunity approach works.

What actually happened? On May 20th, the country released the update to the survey. Instead of 26% of the population having been infected, the rate was just…5.4% (7.3% in Stockholm. National average of 5.4% found crossing age-based prevalence with Sweden’s age distribution.)

These numbers likely reflect the immunity of around April 20th, since it takes some time for antibodies to develop. However, about half of the 5.4% are likely false positives. It could be that true positives by April 20th were only 2.3%. Regardless, let’s be very generous and assume that, by end of April, the prevalence was ~7%.

This was critical: Swedish epidemiologists thought the country’s sacrifices would have gotten them halfway to Herd Immunity. This showed they were 10% of the way there, and the death toll would need to multiply by up to 10 before getting to Herd Immunity. Or more, since the elderly had been less infected than the rest of the population (2.7% for people above 65 years old).

“This means either that the statistical calculations made by the Public Health Authority and myself are quite properly wrong. […] Or it is a larger part that has been infected than that developed antibodies.” — Tom Britton, professor of mathematics at Stockholm University and advisor to the Swedish government, via Dagens Nyheter.

With ~10 million Swedes, 7% means around 700k had been infected at some point, and ~9 times more would need to be infected before Herd Immunity. Since deaths take around 3 weeks to happen, this should be comparable to the number of deaths around the end of May, so around 4,000.

With ~700k infected and ~4,000 deaths, the infection fatality rate (IFR) would be 0.57%. The Swedish government thought it would be 0.1%, nearly six times lower than it already is.

”I think [the fatality rate] will be like a severe influenza season, which might be on the order of… 0.1% maybe.” Prof. Johan Giesecke, advisor to the Swedish government and former head of the dept now headed by Tegnell, via Unherd.

Letting the virus run through the entire population would multiply deaths by an order of magnitude, bringing the death toll to ~30,000–40,000 people.

 

This, by the way, is not unique to Sweden. Even in areas with massive outbreaks, a low percentage of the population has been infected.

Not only that, but this makes another huge assumption: that people with antibodies against the coronavirus are actually immune. We don’t know that.

It could be, for example, that some people appear to have immunity but in fact they have antibodies for another type of coronavirus. They might also have developed a few antibodies from a small exposure to the virus, but a bigger exposure might overwhelm their system. If situations like these were true, in a country like Sweden, the percentage of the population that is currently immune could be even lower than 6.7%, and reaching Herd Immunity could be even farther off.

 

 

itd. itd.

Procitajte ceo tekst, odlican je.

 

 

Dobar je deo gde diskutuje case fatality rate (CFR) and infection fatality rate (IFR) i poredi s gripom.

Za USA za grip CFR je 0,13%, verovatno je IFR 0,013%

Za USA kaze da je sada CFR za covid oko 6%, za South Korea, Taiwan, and the Diamond Princess cruise ship oko 2-2,5%

Na osnovu velikog broja studija dosao je do zakljucka da je srednja vrednost IFR negde oko 0,64% (u intervalu od 0,5% do 1,5%)

Quote

Any IFR in the range we’re seeing is a big deal. If 65% of the population contracts the virus, between 0.4% and 1% of a country’s entire population will die before reaching Herd Immunity. Countries must decide whether they’re ok with that—transparently debating it with their citizens.

 

 

[wwww]

Quote

When countries make the decision of whether to pursue Herd Immunity or control the virus, they should also look into collateral damage, side effects, and chronic conditions that the coronavirus might cause. We now know it affects the lungs, the kidneys, the intestines, the immune system, the blood, the heart, the brain…

The virus can damage the body directly, but also indirectly through cytokine storms that make the immune system attack the body, through blood clots, through lack of oxygen, or through the side-effects of the treatment.

These secondary effects can provoke strokes, seizures, heart attacks, kidney failures, ARDS (acute respiratory distress syndrome), skin changes, kawasaki syndrome, gangrene, pulmonary fibrosis or thrombosis. Lung damage has even been found in people who showed no noticeable symptoms.

 

Summarizing:

• Between 0.5% and 1.5% of infected die from the coronavirus
• Many more become very sick
• All of that might turn out to be worse if those with antibodies are not safe from the virus, or if it mutates

This virus is nasty. Letting it run loose exposes people not just to possible death, but to all the complications that might emerge from infection. We could be creating a wounded generation.

 

The first measure Sweden took to protect care homes was to forbid visits. That type of measure limits contagion. Under a Herd Immunity strategy, these limits would need to last for years until there’s a treatment or vaccine — instead of a few weeks during a Hammer. That’s because even when many people have already overcome their infections, the virus is still present. During all this time, as soon as one single person is infected in a care home, the virus spreads like wildfire inside. So no visits for years.

The elderly still need workers to take care of them. What will happen with these workers, called shielders? Will they also be quarantined? For years? What about their partners, will they also be quarantined? Will they have to lose their jobs? What about their kids, should they also be quarantined? Stop going to school? If not, what about other kids and their parents? Should they be quarantined instead? All of that’s impossible, so we must assume many care home workers will get infected. How to protect the elderly from them?

 

 

Sweden is a healthy country. People have fewer pre-existing conditions that worsen their outcomes. In the UK, adding people with pre-existing conditions, old people, and their shielders, we get to 40% of the population that needs to be protected.

In the US, it’s even worse. 45% of the population has pre-existing conditions that increase their risk of death. That doesn’t even include old people. More than half the population is at serious risk.

It’s not sufficient to protect these people. All their contacts would need to be extremely careful not to catch the virus and pass it to their vulnerable loved ones. As a result, substantially more than half of the US population would need to be extremely careful for years. How are we going to keep more than half of the population safe from the rest?

Some people are already extra careful. Cancer patients undergoing treatment, for example, are immunosuppressed. Their immune system is weak, so they must be extremely careful to not catch anything. However, it’s one thing to have a few people be very careful, but half the population is a much bigger task.

In summary

• A lot of old people are dying from the virus
• No country has been able to shield them so far
• People with pre-existing conditions also have a high risk of death
• If we decide to protect old people, people with pre-existing conditions, and their shielders, we would need to seclude a huge chunk of the population from the rest.

 

[Darko]

Veoma zanimljivo i ima smisla - ali, what's the end game? Šta preporučuje za budućnost?

[wwww]

Quote

Many measures can be taken to stop the coronavirus, including testing, contact tracing, isolations, quarantines, universal masks, hygiene, physical distancing, public education, sewage testing, travel restrictions and crowds restrictions. All countries should apply these measures, since they’re mostly proven, much cheaper, and can dramatically reduce the epidemic.

Whoever tells you it can’t be done hasn’t done their homework. Not taking these measures and letting the coronavirus run amok will only cause more sickness, more death, and a worse economy.

 

Quote

What Should Sweden Do Now?

Sweden has been slowly accepting its mistakes, from the government modeler who acknowledged their models were possibly wrong, to Tegnell’s admission that there have been mistakes in managing deaths. This is not easy to do. I applaud them.

Some new precautions have been taken. A two-meter distance is required between people, and citizens have been asked to avoid public transportation. But this is not enough.

For example, the government has not yet realized that the coronavirus spreads through aerosols via droplet clouds. It continues to deny that masks work. That stance has been proven wrong by research across nearly 100 scientific papers, endorsed by over 100 experts — including two Nobel prize winners.

The Swedish government fears that people could have a false sense of security when using them and stop distancing socially. But East Asian countries have near universal mask wearing, and they’ve been dancing successfully for months. If improper mask wearing was so bad, they should have suffered massive outbreaks.

More examples:

• The virus mostly spreads in clusters, but the Swedish government says the country doesn’t suffer from clusters anymore. The limit of 50 people in crowds is too high.
• The government is not testing because it’s not tracing contacts. It needs to do both to keep people home when they’re sick or might have been exposed.
• The government needs to acknowledge that nearly half of infections are pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic, and take measures accordingly. For example, if somebody in a family is sick, everybody in the family should quarantine, including those without symptoms. All should wear masks.
• The government should stop requiring all children to go to school, especially if they live with people with pre-existing conditions or with somebody infected.

One thing is to decide against a Hammer. That’s fine. It happened. We can’t change the past. A very different thing is to know you can Dance to reduce your epidemic dramatically and for quite cheap, but actively decide not to do it. The UK’s government has acknowledged its mistakes and changed course. Pressure is mounting for Sweden to do the same. Tens of thousands of lives are at stake. If the government doesn’t decide to acknowledge its mistakes and correct its course, bodies will keep piling up for nothing.

 

Edited June 16, 2020 by wwww

[Jataganac]

https://nova.rs/region/veliko-naucno-otkrice-steroid-od-pet-funti-ubija-koronu

 

 

[wwww]

4 hours ago, Laki21 koji lebdi said:

https://nova.rs/region/veliko-naucno-otkrice-steroid-od-pet-funti-ubija-koronu

 

 

 

 

[RatzenStadt]

On 6/13/2020 at 5:55 AM, wwww said:

First large study (UK) on lifestyle and Covid-19 confirmed: smokers, ex-smokers, people who abstain from sports and those who are overweight are at higher risk of developing a severe course. Even without previous illnesses. The overweight unsporting smoker has 4 times the risk.

 

 

On 6/4/2020 at 4:00 PM, wwww said:

A very (!) Astonishing result, but shown in a robust study. Blood group A about 50% higher risk of severe course Covid-19. Twice the risk as blood group 0. Blood group B in between. Since immune response depends on blood type, that makes sense