Jump to content
FishandChips

Corona virus general questions mega thread

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Kartazion said:

Ok.

And I read this Coronavirus found in air samples from up to 13 feet from patients. Can we catch the virus from the air?

Yes. It can be suspended in the air and you can inhale it. I'm sure it can carry further than 13 feet. The question is at what level, and what level does it take to "catch" it.

My take right now is that if you follow the intent of the guidelines, you have done your part to flatten the curve. This won't guarantee you won't get it though, so if you are at risk health or age wise you should do more...up to complete isolation if you feel it's necessary.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

The question is at what level, and what level does it take to "catch" it.

Yes indeed.

And can we talk about a level of viral load and this in the air?
Then we just need to know the threshold of the number of copies per millilitre to be infected.

Or rather the number of copies inhaled per liter of air.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

Yes indeed.

And can we talk about a level of viral load and this in the air?

We can. Where do we start?

27 minutes ago, Kartazion said:


Then we just need to know the threshold of the number of copies per millilitre to be infected.

Or rather the number of copies inhaled per liter of air.

Or just number of copies inhaled over a given time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Or just number of copies inhaled over a given time?

Do you think it can be done by accumulation and this in the long run? More longer we breathe it, more there will be in the body?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Kartazion said:

Do you think it can be done by accumulation and this in the long run? More longer we breathe it, more there will be in the body?

My limited and non technical take on it:

I do think more exposure over shorter time periods allow the virus to take root. I just don't (of course) know how much over how long, and I think this would vary with individuals and circumstance. An earlier low dose exposure may actually be helpful (but don't try it at home...or anywhere else!)

It's not really just an accumulation from exposure, as it's replicating in the body while the immune system is fighting it off, and some parts of the body are more vulnerable than others.

Every body is a different battlefield, but I think it can be quantified to some degree at some point, as more becomes known about the virus and it's effects.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certain key numbers, such as infectious doses are still missing for proper evaluation. The fairly low reproductive number is at least one hint that widespread airborne transmission is probably not a driving infections.

That being said, it is not wrong to take precautions, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Presuming that the advice here in Australia is reasonably agreed, we are told that children are relatively minor risk of catching or transmitting SARS-Co2. And of course when they get it are minor risk of severe symptoms.

One possible strategy could be to intentionally allow infection on those age brackets. It would help lead toward herd immunity. Now ethically let alone politically I doubt it would be permitted anywhere.

HOWEVER - is some form of vaccine that was more aggressive possible for those low risk age groups? Would this assist quicker development of a vaccine. Then for the at risk groups a different more subtle, more tested vaccine be sought in the fullness of time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, druS said:

Presuming that the advice here in Australia is reasonably agreed, we are told that children are relatively minor risk of catching or transmitting SARS-Co2. And of course when they get it are minor risk of severe symptoms.

I'm not sure they are minor risk to catching it (and so to transmitting it), but clearly they have less chance to have severe symptom.

(but  this article may explain a bit of the low transmission rate for the children: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7102573/pdf/main.pdf , or those one explain than children just have less severe symptom https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/apa.15271 or https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/apa.15270)

However the problem of allowing infection of the youngest people (if we forget politic or ethic) is than youngest people still be a  good vector to transmit to the more fragil people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. Children are likely asymptomatic carriers and generally live with folks that are older...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, CharonY said:

Exactly. Children are likely asymptomatic carriers and generally live with folks that are older...

What is it about a young person's physiology that makes them less susceptible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

What is it about a young person's physiology that makes them less susceptible?

We don't have the same immune system (the proportion of Ig are different, cytokine ....)
 

I found a paper about H.pylori (it's a bacteria but ... it can be extrapolated for virus). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4606101/pdf/JIR2015-315957.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, StringJunky said:

What is it about a young person's physiology that makes them less susceptible?

Ultimately we don't know yet. It is atypical to many other respiratory diseases, but a working hypothesis is that it is because children do not mount cytokine storms. Another one is that symptoms are amplified by accumulated lung injuries/damages and that younger folks just have healthier lungs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about the links to hypertension/heart disease and diabetes.
Is it simply the fact that older people , with compromised immune systems, are also much more likely to have high blood pressure and diabetes ?
Or is it likely, at least for hypertension, that common drugs used to treat it, raise levels of the enzyme ACE2.
Both, blood pressure medication and SARS-COV2 target cellular ACE2 receptors of cells found in alveoli and small bronchial tubes where O2/CO2 is exchanged.
But then, what of Diabetes and heart disease ?

( or am I displaying symptoms of "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing", A Pope )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, CharonY said:

Exactly. Children are likely asymptomatic carriers and generally live with folks that are older…

The problem also applies to the asymptomatic adult carriers. We'll have to test every one of us. As Many as 50 Percent of People with covid-19 Aren’t Aware They Have the Virus.
See even Over 75% of people with covid-19 are asymptomatic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kartazion said:

The problem also applies to the asymptomatic adult carriers. We'll have to test every one of us. As Many as 50 Percent of People with covid-19 Aren’t Aware They Have the Virus.
See even Over 75% of people with covid-19 are asymptomatic.

It is a big unknown. Antibody testing is going to be the next stage for better understanding of epidemiological coverage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, CharonY said:

Exactly. Children are likely asymptomatic carriers and generally live with folks that are older...

This seems inconsistent with the advice from the Chief Medical Officer in Australia. The view is that the risk of transmission in schools is low and that teachers greatest risk is from other teachers, that parents greatest risk is exposure to other parents during drop off. I understand that schools are a something of a petri dish for many virus, but the view here seems to be that this virus is different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, druS said:

This seems inconsistent with the advice from the Chief Medical Officer in Australia. The view is that the risk of transmission in schools is low and that teachers greatest risk is from other teachers, that parents greatest risk is exposure to other parents during drop off. I understand that schools are a something of a petri dish for many virus, but the view here seems to be that this virus is different.

Or the motivation to keep schools open is different. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hypervalent_iodine said:

Or the motivation to keep schools open is different. 

No doubt at all. Two different things though. The medical advice should be the medical advice. Period. Policy setting should hefor ed that advice but dictate a response that balances things with general matters. In this case those include:

1. the country can't allow students to miss a year of schooling

2. closing schools would have a dramatic impact on health workers who rely on support from the schooling system in order to do their job.

3. drastic measures on the economy have their own impact which will also ultimately impact health of the public as poverty increases.

So I can understand a desire by those responsible for the policy settings to keep schools open if it can be justified. But none of that should allow medical advice to be anything other than medical advice.

And before we get too down the track of a presumption of political meddling in medical advice, Australia is doing relatively well on  a global scale. Our current growth rate is 0.83 and has been below 1 for about two weeks. Our hospitals are about to be permitted to return to elective surgery (important to me as my wife treatment for a brain tumour has been halted)  - this because, at this stage, our health system is not a risk of being overwhelmed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there has necessarily been any political meddling. They are working with the data that they have, but I also think that this is where the issue potentially lies, since I don't believe there has been significant testing done in children to know what risk they actually pose to other people.  

I completely agree with you on your points about school closures - the long term economic effects would be disastrous. In addition to your points I would also comment that universities, which are already struggling with the loss of international student money, would surely go bust if they also lost an entire graduating year of domestic students.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hypervalent_iodine said:

In addition to your points I would also comment that universities, which are already struggling with the loss of international student money, would surely go bust if they also lost an entire graduating year of domestic students.  

Another effect may be more people utilizing online courses going forward. Much of many universities brick and mortar, and support structure for it, could become redundant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, druS said:

This seems inconsistent with the advice from the Chief Medical Officer in Australia. The view is that the risk of transmission in schools is low and that teachers greatest risk is from other teachers, that parents greatest risk is exposure to other parents during drop off. I understand that schools are a something of a petri dish for many virus, but the view here seems to be that this virus is different.

I think evidence is clear that children are carriers ( but often under tested) what is unclear is whether they are spreaders. Data is lacking here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If wetmarkets create new diseases by having so many different species of animals in close proximity, how come zoos aren't as prone to creating new diseases?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hygiene. Proximity. The animals aren’t stacked five high nor are they being ingested. There are other reasons, too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think in this context it would be good time to have a read what wet markets are:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/14/asia/china-wet-market-coronavirus-intl-hnk/index.html

Also a more common source for zoonotic diseases. Pigs are a good reservoir where assortment of human, swine an avian viruses have been observed and which have been implicated with the 1918 flu pandemic (though not quite clear) and obviously the 2009 swine flu pandemic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted this on Corvid-19 forum and for quite a while I keep getting the reply : it is pending review. I need to know this forum members opinion. I am not trying to get any money out of it. I simply will be very happy if it offers a cure. The idea is as follows:

Can obese cure medicine be used to treat Covid-19 because the cure deals with fat reduction and the virus has a fat layer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.