J.C.MacSwell

The one treatment I remember for Kawasaki's was a daily dose of aspirin that went on for several months. IIRC it was a single "baby" (low dose, 81mg) aspirin daily, to thin the blood. Aspirin is generally not recommended (Read as don't give it to them) for children, due to increased risk of Reye's Syndrome, but it was considered a necessary and acceptable risk at that time. Low dose aspirin is also used as a therapy for older adults with risk of heart attack or stroke, but currently not otherwise, due to risks including stomach bleeding https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/a-major-change-for-daily-aspirin-therapy Aspirin in higher doses has been linked to increased deaths during the Spanish Flu, so it is definitely a double edge sword.

I saw that. As far as I know Kawasaki's is a set of symptoms of unknown cause, so maybe the Covid virus manifests that way in some children?

My oldest son had Kawasaki's disease. As far as I know there is no increased risk as he full recovered around 20 years ago. Coincidentally he is at the house today for the first time in over two months after yesterday's easing of restrictions in Nova Scotia.

Obviously that would be a concern, but if we can assume it can be sexually transmitted, let's say vaginally, would that give the body more time to adapt than breathing in the virus, given that this manifests most dangerously as a respiratory disease? Broadening the question what is generally the most dangerous way to "catch" a flu or flu like disease? Not to be confused with most likely way to "catch" it. Is there a way to get it that is least/most preferred, assuming you would get it? I did see some claim that abstinence was advised for 28 days after recovery as a precautionary measure.

That's the circumference. The area is pi X r squared, or (pi X diameter squared)/4. cross posted with Swansont

try pi X diameter squared /4

I seem to recall there was a plan to have Australia and New Zealand maintain the same restriction zone rather than each country restricting everyone.

True...but I did hear on TV that there are a lot of cases where people don't get sick, or only mildly get so. So I guess some of it is true?

Surely you're joking... ...Mr. Joigus

We have focused more on mechanical ventilation. Here is a WHO publication to natural ventilation for health care settings if you are interested. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/44167/9789241547857_eng.pdf;jsessionid=39488D09F98E3FB5C175C9CC2225AD4B?sequence=1

Nothing technical, but here is an interesting article based on some Canadian Engineers considering the problem. There does seem to be some disagreement as to how much the spread is airborne, other than immediately from droplets being probably most significant, but they are primarily concerned with the control that ventilation can improve on: https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/news/canada/covid-19-likely-spread-by-building-ventilation-say-canadian-researchers-working-on-an-hvac-fix-442278/

One thing that is generally accepted with respect to avoiding airborne viruses is that being outside is considered better than being inside most buildings. Obviously a big part of that is ventilation by somewhat random dilution typical of outside conditions. So more of the same and more make up air might help. The key is to make sure that it does .

My concern is with the ones in between. Unless there is reason to believe droplets that size are acceptably safe, and I can't see how that is likely. Good point with respect to evaporation. I think that is considered in the duration of the risk from airborne droplets. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1600-0668.2007.00469.x

Here is the Province of New Brunswick's, which has one of the most successful responses so far to the pandemic, response plan for reopening in stages. They are about to go to the middle phase (second "opening" phase) after just 2 new cases this week. A week ago they made their first step on re-opening after 2 weeks with no new cases. It's colour coded and can move either way as circumstances change. Also interesting article on how, in part, they managed to avoid the worst of it (so far, and knock on wood) including multi-party cooperation: https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/heroes-of-the-pandemic-new-brunswick-politician-who-crushed-the-covid-19-curve-is-a-virus-whisperer

Agree with the first bold. It may be expensive, but so is not being able to use a building except with significantly reduced capacity. However, for every velocity of upward airflow there exists a droplet size that has a terminal velocity that matches it. Droplets around that size will be hanging around for a while, supported by that airflow. Also any sufficiently large building that turns the air over ever few seconds would make for a pretty good (or even excessive) wind tunnel air velocity.

Is there any potential for a lozenge, spray or mist that could coat the throat and upper airway in such a way as to reduce the spreading of the virus by an infected patient? Particularly asymptomatic ones...the thought being that without the coughing/wheezing etc they should be low transmitters but are said to be otherwise, for some reason that has yet to become clear (I've heard they have a higher viral count, if that is the correct term) Is there anything that could act as a barrier to any degree, that would not be detrimental to the user? Or even something that could act to reduce the viral count in the surfaces of the upper airway (which presumably could reduce the amount of virus exhaled)

In Trumps defence...the current pandemic isn't completely about him... Where was Bush when it really mattered?

The worst air has virus droplets and aerosols, effectively slightly and very slightly heavier than air respectively. Drawing air downward will work with that to more efficiently remove the virus rather than keep it suspended, and stronger flows or turbulence in the worst air will be kept closer to your feet than your face, while fresh intake air can enter from higher levels, closer to your face than your feet.

Randomized sets of tests can reveal some information on the spread of the virus that the targeted ones do not.

Makes sense. Obama really should have been thinking ahead. Only question is: "why didn't Trump think of this sooner?" Must be Covid anxiety...he's not on his game...or perhaps overly focused on Covid 23...(that one's on him)

We will never have complete information. We need to strive for as much as we can (and can afford), and tailor our restrictions to our circumstances, to get the balance right. The risk/reward for this is very asymmetric. We gain very little but time to plan and prepare while holding new cases near zero, but pay dearly if things get out of hand...and we don't really know at what point that can happen. So we have to err on the side of caution...then pay our money, take our chances, and hope for the best. Re-opening won't be one size fits all.

5.3 million residents down to 1 or 2 new cases per day does seem reasonable to lift some restrictions. The question would be how much. With just 135 new cases (reported) in a week, hopefully they will make the right adjustments and get back on a more cautious track. I don't think we will really be able to safely open up to much of a degree anywhere without a number of the right things in place. They may have, but just relaxed restrictions to far, opening up schools and businesses (they don't make it clear to what degree) In comparison, the province of New Brunswick, with similar land area but about a seventh the population, after over a week of no new cases reduced restrictions almost a week ago and have so far no new cases. They still haven't reopened schools and I think business restrictions stayed much the same at this point. (also not an island, but cross border traffic is mostly trucking with all borders restricted) I think the keys are caution, testing, and the ability to respond as new information emerges. One might argue Hokkaido did it right if more was known, but were just a little unfortunate and now need to gear down. Obviously 135 new cases in a week won't overwhelm their health care system. Compare also to the Province of Quebec, much larger than Hokkaido but comparable population. They are planning to reduce restrictions fairly soon but still have around 800 new cases per day...hopefully not before they have a chance to rethink this, at least for the more urban areas or hot spots.

Pence must figure he has a star on his belly...

It does seem premature for Iowa to ease up at all, never mind re-open most things. They really haven't established any control of the growth in the number of cases under the current restrictions.

The intent seems to be in devising a ventilation system that will help mitigate this, at least in part. A less than optimal ventilation system can facilitate spread, even if it doesn't introduce any virus on the supply side, simply by the airflow patterns it helps produce in the room. (though I'm fairly certain air from rooms designed for infected patients in hospitals is not returned unfiltered...which would lead me to think it is a concern) Does it need to be? I think there is still a concern with aerosols, and while the distinction is never cut and dried, they tend to stay suspended more than droplets.