Coronavirus COVID-19 - Global Health Pandemic #83

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
It seems that Australia has suffered no excess deaths this year - between Feb and May. Nor has New Zealand.


Australia has suffered no excess deaths from COVID-19, according to an important study of 21 industrialised countries published in the journal Nature Medicine.
Led by Imperial College, London, the study assessed how many people were expected to die in a normal year in each country and compared this with how many did die over the first wave.

Likely because our flu deaths were so hugely reduced this year ... so it has kind of balanced those figures out.
(When we are speaking of numbers alone.)

Australia has suffered no extra deaths from COVID-19


Here's a link to the actual study in the journal Nature, published Oct. 14th.

Magnitude, demographics and dynamics of the effect of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic on all-cause mortality in 21 industrialized countries | Nature Medicine

Abstract
The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has changed many social, economic, environmental and healthcare determinants of health. We applied an ensemble of 16 Bayesian models to vital statistics data to estimate the all-cause mortality effect of the pandemic for 21 industrialized countries.

From mid-February through May 2020, 206,000 (95% credible interval, 178,100–231,000) more people died in these countries than would have had the pandemic not occurred. The number of excess deaths, excess deaths per 100,000 people and relative increase in deaths were similar between men and women in most countries.

England and Wales and Spain experienced the largest effect: ~100 excess deaths per 100,000 people, equivalent to a 37% (30–44%) relative increase in England and Wales and 38% (31–45%) in Spain. Bulgaria, New Zealand, Slovakia, Australia, Czechia, Hungary, Poland, Norway, Denmark and Finland experienced mortality changes that ranged from possible small declines to increases of 5% or less in either sex.

[...]

The 21 countries in our analysis were Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czechia, Denmark, England and Wales, Finland, France, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Scotland, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland.
 
Last edited:
Coronavirus: The new Batman movie is still being filmed in Liverpool - despite the city's Tier 3 restrictions

Now, filming has resumed in Liverpool - in the same week it was announced that the city would be the first to be placed under strict Tier 3 restrictions, the most serious, due to a high number of COVID-19 cases.

Photographs of the production - with Gotham police cars and news vans, and Batman seen riding through the streets - have raised questions as to how filming is able to go ahead when residents are banned from socialising with other households both indoors and outdoors, including in private gardens, and bars, gyms, betting shops, casinos and pubs that do not serve meals are being closed.
 
On October 13 the White House confirmed that it is embracing what the Los Angeles Times editorial board calls the “let people die” strategy in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. The strategy involves deliberately letting the novel coronavirus rip through the population while attempting to shield the most vulnerable, such as the elderly and those with pre-existing health conditions.

From a public health and ethical viewpoint, the fact that the Great Barrington Declaration is now the Trump administration’s official policy is deeply troubling. The declaration, says Gregg Gonsalves, an epidemiologist at Yale University, has “shocked and dismayed the vast majority of people working in public health and clinical medicine.”

For a start, no pandemic has ever been controlled by deliberately letting the infection spread unchecked in the hope that people become immune.

Allowing millions more Americans to get COVID-19 would also be devastating for the U.S. economy. An economy cannot be healthy if its population is sick.

The White House Wants to Achieve Herd Immunity By Letting the Virus Rip. That is Dangerous and Inhumane.

Surely this is a crime against humanity.
 
Tucker Carlson responds to CDC after agency critiques commentary about mask-wearing

During his commentary, Carlson cited a study conducted by 11 medical institutions that analyzed a group of people who tested positive for coronavirus during the month of July. The study found that among those who were infected, more than 70% reported they had "always" worn a mask over the preceding 14 days. Another 14.4% said they had "often" worn a mask.

In a statement issued to Fox News on Wednesday, a CDC spokesperson wrote that "social media postings citing a table in an MMWR published September 11, 2020, suggest that CDC’s face mask guidance is failing to prevent the spread of the virus that causes COVID-19 because study participants had indicated having worn masks often and still contracted COVID-19.

The statement added, "CDC guidance on masks has clearly stated that wearing a mask is intended to protect other people in case the mask wearer is infected. At no time has CDC guidance suggested that masks were intended to protect the wearers."

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-confused-about-masks-heres-
science-behind-how-face-masks-prevent

Article dated June 2020--- pretty comprehensive
 
Surely this is a crime against humanity.
Pursuing a vaccine is herd immunity though so how can herd immunity be a crime against humanity?

Herd immunity - Wikipedia

Herd immunity (also called herd effect, community immunity, population immunity, or social immunity) is a form of indirect protection from infectious disease that occurs when a sufficient percentage of a population has become immune to an infection, whether through vaccination or previous infections, thereby reducing the likelihood of infection for individuals who lack immunity.[1][2] Immune individuals are unlikely to contribute to disease transmission, disrupting chains of infection, which stops or slows the spread of disease.[3] The greater the proportion of immune individuals in a community, the smaller the probability that non-immune individuals will come into contact with an infectious individual.[1]

Continued at link.
 
Pursuing a vaccine is herd immunity though so how can herd immunity be a crime against humanity?

We must not have been reading the same article. The crime against humanity is not about pursuing a vaccine, but against leaving a vulnerable population exposed to a deadly virus.


Crime against humanity means [...] acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack: Inhumane acts intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect
 
Last edited:
The link didn't work for me. This is what came up.

Oops! We’re lost.
Looks like we can’t find the page you were looking for.

hmmm- i will see if i can find it again: have no idea why it went "poof"
 

Thanks- that link is ok.

From the link.


Editor's Note: This story was updated on July 11 to include information on why valved masks do not block exhaled droplets.

Why did the CDC change its guidance on wearing masks?
The original CDC guidance partly was based on what was thought to be low disease prevalence earlier in the pandemic, said Chin-Hong.

“So, of course, you’re preaching that the juice isn’t really worth the squeeze to have the whole population wear masks in the beginning – but that was really a reflection of not having enough testing, anyway,” he said. “We were getting a false sense of security.”

Rutherford was more blunt. The legitimate concern that the limited supply of surgical masks and N95 respirators should be saved for health care workers should not have prevented more nuanced messaging about the benefits of masking. “We should have told people to wear cloth masks right off the bat,” he said.

Another factor “is that culturally, the U.S. wasn’t really prepared to wear masks,” unlike some countries in Asia where the practice is more common, said Chin-Hong. Even now, some Americans are choosing to ignore CDC guidance and local mandates on masks, a hesitation that Chin-Hong says is “foolhardy.”

What may have finally convinced the CDC to change its guidance in favor of masks were rising disease prevalence and a clearer understanding that both pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic transmission are possible – even common. Studies have found that viral load peaks in the days before symptoms begin and that speaking is enough to expel virus-carrying droplets.

“I think the biggest thing with COVID now that shapes all of this guidance on masks is that we can’t tell who’s infected,” said Chin-Hong. “You can’t look in a crowd and say, oh, that person should wear mask. There’s a lot of asymptomatic infection, so everybody has to wear a mask.”

What evidence do we have that wearing a mask is effective in preventing COVID-19?
There are several strands of evidencesupporting the efficacy of masks.

One category of evidence comes from laboratory studies of respiratory droplets and the ability of various masks to block them. An experiment using high-speed video found that hundreds of droplets ranging from 20 to 500 micrometers were generated when saying a simple phrase, but that nearly all these droplets were blocked when the mouth was covered by a damp washcloth. Another study of people who had influenza or the common cold found that wearing a surgical mask significantly reduced the amount of these respiratory viruses emitted in droplets and aerosols.

But the strongest evidence in favor of masks come from studies of real-world scenarios. “The most important thing are the epidemiologic data,” said Rutherford. Because it would be unethical to assign people to not wear a mask during a pandemic, the epidemiological evidence has come from so-called “experiments of nature.”

A recent study published in Health Affairs, for example, compared the COVID-19 growth rate before and after mask mandates in 15 states and the District of Columbia. It found that mask mandates led to a slowdown in daily COVID-19 growth rate, which became more apparent over time. The first five days after a mandate, the daily growth rate slowed by 0.9 percentage-points compared to the five days prior to the mandate; at three weeks, the daily growth rate had slowed by 2 percentage-points.

Another study looked at coronavirus deaths across 198 countries and found that those with cultural norms or government policies favoring mask-wearing had lower death rates.

Two compelling case reports also suggest that masks can prevent transmission in high-risk scenarios, said Chin-Hong and Rutherford. In one case, a man flew from China to Toronto and subsequently tested positive for COVID-19. He had a dry cough and wore a mask on the flight, and all 25 people closest to him on the flight tested negative for COVID-19. In another case, in late May, two hair stylists in Missourihad close contact with 140 clients while sick with COVID-19. Everyone wore a mask and none of the clients tested positive.

Do masks protect the people wearing them or the people around them?
“I think there’s enough evidence to say that the best benefit is for people who have COVID-19 to protect them from giving COVID-19 to other people, but you’re still going to get a benefit from wearing a mask if you don’t have COVID-19,” said Chin-Hong.

Masks may be more effective as a “source control” because they can prevent larger expelled droplets from evaporating into smaller droplets that can travel farther.

Another factor to remember, noted Rutherford, is that you could still catch the virus through the membranes in your eyes, a risk that masking does not eliminate.

How many people need to wear masks to reduce community transmission?
“What you want is 100 percent of people to wear masks, but you’ll settle for 80 percent,” said Rutherford. In one simulation, researchers predicted that 80 percent of the population wearing masks would do more to reduce COVID-19 spread than a strict lockdown.
 
https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-confused-about-masks-heres-
science-behind-how-face-masks-prevent

Article dated June 2020--- pretty comprehensive

We need to move the cheese... to educate others that a mask is not a stand alone! I believe most here get it.

MOO

management-covid19-model-virus-swisscheese-original.jpeg



https://img.grepmed.com/uploads/10555/management-covid19-model-virus-swisscheese-original.jpeg
 
The link didn't work for me. This is what came up.

Oops! We’re lost.
Looks like we can’t find the page you were looking for.

Could not find that particular article but found another that suggests the wearer is also protected by masks -- the article suggests that wearing a mask does not necessarily mean you won't get the virus (there are no guarantees that mask wearing 100% prevents the virus), but that is minimizes viral load -thereby a person would not get as ill. Makes sense to me. I cannot see any downside to masks. It is just common sense.

Cloth Masks Do Protect the Wearer — Breathing in Less Coronavirus Means You Get Less Sick
 
I am soon traveling 1 state over from me and will need to visit grocery stores to get supplies. That state’s masking requirements are different than my state. Does anyone know how I can find out if I will still be permitted to wear a mask into establishments there even though it isn’t required? I am not comfortable going anywhere without a mask.
 

This strategy is evidently of great concern to many. There are many current articles about it ... trying hard to inform the population. IMO

Forbes has an article that tries to realistically outline the issues with "focused protection" (otherwise known as the Great Barrington Declaration).


1. Many deaths will occur.
2. Suffering and long term health problems will occur.
3. This could overwhelm a broken health care system.
4. It’s not clear how long immunity may last.
5. How do you define vulnerable people?
6. How do you identify who is vulnerable?
7. How would you actually protect the vulnerable?
8. This could distract and distract from other possible strategies.

Ultimately, calling something “great” doesn’t necessarily make it great, and calling something “protection” doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s protecting the general public. The U.S. has already seen what can happen when you don’t do enough to stop the spread of the Covid-19 coronavirus. With 215,887 deaths to date and counting, that hasn’t exactly worked out great for the U.S.
White House Considering ‘The Great Barrington Declaration’ Herd Immunity Strategy For Covid-19 Coronavirus
 
We must not have been reading the same article. The crime against humanity is not about pursuing a vaccine, but against leaving a vulnerable population exposed to a deadly virus.


Crime against humanity means [...] acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack: Inhumane acts intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect

Wearing a mask will stop it spreading and CDC is advising masks. Maybe initially you could say that when they were not advising to wear them. If CDC now said get rid of the masks, I might agree, but they have not said that.

The reason for lockdowns is to slow the spread so hospitals can cope, not to eliminate the spread but to get it below RT of 1. MOO.
 
Last edited:
Varicella (chickenpox) has a vaccine which is administered to American children around age 12-15 months, with a booster just before school, and often another booster at age 13-14.

Chickenpox wasn't under control until the vaccine came along. And, it has an interesting twist, which is that older adults lose their immunity (this has to do with T cells and humoral immunity) and can get shingles...so we retake the vaccine if we're concerned as adults. I don't know anyone who has ever had shingles who didn't go on to take the vaccine, as it is not a fun disease.

Truth....pain is excruciating ........ Because it can just hit you out of the blue, as it did me, I really try to encourage anyone to get the Shingles vaccine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
72
Guests online
2,083
Total visitors
2,155

Forum statistics

Threads
601,010
Messages
18,117,147
Members
230,995
Latest member
truelove
Back
Top