Jump to content

Corona virus general questions mega thread


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, MigL said:

It may act as a systemic inflammatory agent.

There is something to that. There have been observation consistent with observations of cytokine storm syndrome.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 505
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

==Well, honestly YOU led the thread in all sorts of OT direction. And, now, simply b/c you don't have your usual SMUG "BIOLOGY EXPERT"  response, you want claim hijacking?? Really?!!  YOU ARE A TYPICA

You sample an early patient. You sample a later patient. You compare them. You see how much it’s mutated. You do the same for flu.  You see if covid mutates as quickly as flu. How is this a question f

Posted Images

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, invasive-feces said:

I just heard a report on Science Friday (??) that COVID-19 was found in semen. So it may be (or have become) sexually communicable. 

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200507/virus-found-in-semen-of-covid-19-survivors

Finding traces of RNA from the virus, does not mean there are active virions present. It is quite normal for cells to shed viral RNA fragments (even for months after recovery).

They do say that at the very end of the article:

Quote

Poland noted that the new study relies on testing that only detects traces of genetic material from the coronavirus.

"It doesn't tell you that it's whole, viable, infectious virus," Poland said. "If I ground up the virus and performed this test, it would be positive even though that virus has no infectious potential."

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/17/2020 at 7:04 AM, Strange said:

Finding traces of RNA from the virus, does not mean there are active virions present. It is quite normal for cells to shed viral RNA fragments (even for months after recovery).

They do say that at the very end of the article:

 

So, given all that, they should not be infectious. Correct? 

Would they still have "broken" virions in their respiratory tract, possibly leading to some degree of vaccination for others that breath any noninfectious "post covid droplets"?

Follow up question if that is true:

If you look at the curves of the regions that have reduced restrictions, other than a few exceptions we are not seeing much in way of spikes or second waves. Are enough people catching  "post covid 19" to account for this? Or is that just wishful thinking?

Also...would all, most, or some catching "post covid 19" still test positive for Covid 19?

"Catching" might be a poor term to use in case of an inactive or non proliferating "post pathogen". In this case I mean significant enough exposure to get a significant enough immune response. 

But could "friendly zombie covid 19" account, at least in part, for why this virus seems to be so infectious yet somewhat self extinguishing? (given that everywhere it's proliferated it has subsequently subsided...or is that just a result of adequate to sufficient responses in every region, to the the initial exponential rise in numbers of cases?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Would they still have "broken" virions in their respiratory tract, possibly leading to some degree of vaccination for others that breath any noninfectious "post covid droplets"?

I think I have mentioned that before but in order for a seroconversion to happen, you'd need a signficant amount of exposure (most commonly during actual infection). Or at least strong exposure to inactivated viruses. Licking body fluids form recovered folks does not seem prudent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rajasahib said:

There have been speculations about the time period of the pandemic and how long it will recover. Can i get thoughts about people what they think about all the rumors spreading about

You need to be more specific. Can you give an example of a “rumour” you are interested in?

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

I think I have mentioned that before but in order for a seroconversion to happen, you'd need a signficant amount of exposure (most commonly during actual infection). Or at least strong exposure to inactivated viruses. Licking body fluids form recovered folks does not seem prudent.

Thanks. This makes sense. Any thoughts on the levels of success so far on slowing down the virus even while reducing restrictions? Is it simply due to the remaining measures being more adequate than many believed they might be?

Or am I interpreting the data too optimistically? I'm not suggesting we are out of the woods by any means, especially as most are now, temporarily, out of flu season, but there is a general pattern that looks more favourable than seemed to be expected. (not to be confused with the depth of many of those patterns, where many have died, but they seem to have gotten under some degree of control almost everywhere)

Are we just getting better at responding to the virus, and maintaining adequate social distancing even with loosened restrictions?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Any thoughts on the levels of success so far on slowing down the virus even while reducing restrictions? 

As countries in Europe have only just started relaxing restrictions, I guess we will know the answer to that in a couple of weeks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty much. As the lockdown has reduced the number of active cases, an increase will be slower than before. Especially with heightened awareness. There are isolated reports of some local increase in cases, though. But if contact tracing can be maintained, it might be controlled.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well they found a few more clusters in Wuhan, but in response they want to test everyone. If they do, there is good chance for further containment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Well they found a few more clusters in Wuhan, but in response they want to test everyone. If they do, there is good chance for further containment.

Indeed, South Korea never did shut down; even my friend escaped with his life...

Link to post
Share on other sites

The following infographics were featured in the latest (June 2020) issue of Discover Magazine:

https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/historys-most-deadly-pandemics-from-the-antonine-plague-to-covid-19

Pandemic_history_copy.jpg

Large sized image of:above: https://images.ctfassets.net/cnu0m8re1exe/5Wcz9RvRq3yfnV6qWKvuZX/82d60cc1a74648e8c4b9819e2c112dff/Pandemic_history_copy.jpg

Concentrating on the second graphic (Death Toll; note COVID-19 data up to Apr 6, 2020), please list all the reasons why this presentations like this -- so common in pop sci -- may be inaccurate, irrelevant, sensationalistic, etc.

E.g.,

(1) COVID-19 deaths age group typically over >60yo (compared to Black Plague, when most people didn't live that long)

(2) Improvements in science, nutrition, communication (even compared to 1918 Spanish flu, when there were no ventilators, or antibiotics)

(3) etc. (add your own thoughts !)

Edited by invasive-feces
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, invasive-feces said:

Said another way, via cliche, "whats wrong with this picture?"

Lack of context?

Comparing apples and oranges?

Political bias?

Strawman argument?

Take your pick.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, invasive-feces said:

(1) COVID-19 deaths age group typically over >60yo (compared to Black Plague, when most people didn't live that long)

(2) Improvements in science, nutrition, communication (even compared to 1918 Spanish flu, when there were no ventilators, or antibiotics)

(3) etc. (add your own thoughts !)

1) is a misunderstanding. Prior to the the bubonic plague folks that reached adulthood were expected to live well above 60 years. 

2) yes that is a big one. But note that even if take a disease from modern times, such as the Hong Kong flu- in the US an estimated 100,000 folks died. For COVID-19 the US is at over 93k now. So responses are also a factor (I think some would also argue for population size, but in case of disease spread it is less of an issue, as folks do not stochastically become sick, they need to be in contact, which goes back to isolation measures).

When it comes to the value of the graph, to me it says that despite all the tools of modernity at hand, we are still struggling with disease outbreaks. Not sure what else one could read from that, considering the pandemic is not even over yet.

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

1) is a misunderstanding. Prior to the the bubonic plague folks that reached adulthood were expected to live well above 60 years. 

I don't understand this remark as pertaining to COVID-19. 

Let's say, all else being equal, COVID-19 happened in 1347 AD. Over 60 age group were a far smaller fraction of total population than today. So COVID-19 would not be a "huge deal".

A modern analog may be occurring today in 3rd world countries. Not only fewer older folks there, but other diseases and ailments (as well as  lack of medical care and nutrition) kill off the genetically weak in all age groups. 

Rich, "modernized" nations care for the old and genetically challenged: Fresh meat for novel and opportunistic pathogens.

Edited by invasive-feces
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, invasive-feces said:

I don't understand this remark as pertaining to COVID-19. 

Let's say, all else being equal, COVID-19 happened in 1347 AD. Over 60 age group were a far smaller fraction of total population than today. So COVID-19 would not be a "huge deal".

A modern analog may be occurring today in 3rd world countries. Not only fewer older folks there, but other diseases and ailments (as well as  lack of medical care and nutrition) kill off the genetically weak in all age groups. 

Rich, "modernized" nations care for the old and genetically challenged: Fresh meat for novel and opportunistic pathogens.

We are all genetically weak, and genetically challenged. Covid 21 might call up your DNA. None of us are impervious to everything.

Thank God we are not all the same (read also as evolutionary robust...at least in our time)

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

We are all genetically weak, and genetically challenged. Covid 21 might call up your DNA. None of us are impervious to everything.

Thank God we are not all the same (read also as evolutionary robust...at least in our time)

That's an argument against eugenics right there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, invasive-feces said:

I don't understand this remark as pertaining to COVID-19. 

I took your comment as the assumption that folks in those times died well before they reached 60 years of age. However, after childhood, folks actually did get older. However, it would be true that there would be fewer persons of higher age (but it is just not true that folks barely reached 60).

Quote

 Over 60 age group were a far smaller fraction of total population than today. So COVID-19 would not be a "huge deal".

So that is another possible misconception. The health effects are not entirely age based, and certainly not "not a huge deal" for younger folks. Even among below 60 years old plenty of folks required modern treatment, ranging from antibiotics to ventilators. Without those, the fatality rate would go up significantly. But then there are other factors that appear to influence susceptibility. Lung and cardiovascular health seems to be a big one, and theoretically folks could be healthier in that regard. But that would be difficult to tell. And on the not a huge deal part, I should add that there is now significant evidence that even folks that recover from COVID-19 often show evidence of lung tissue scarring. There were expected reductions in lung performance, but so far it is not clear how much folks will recover.

Also, it is not what precisely impacts the pathophysiology of the disease. But so far there are no strong indications of host factors that would help. In contrast, much evidence points to access to healthcare as a bigger determinant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

About that COVID-19 scenario in 1347 AD (noted earlier) ... I maintain  "not such a big deal" for addit factors such as:

  • reduced population density
  • no smokers (Tobacco)
  • better nutrition (compared to std. American diet, processed foods, etc)
  • far less obesity
  • les polluted air
  • sick people usually isolated to homes (not hospitals, with lots of potential vectoring); also, sick were shunned and discriminated against,  evolutionary psychology's "bio-hazard" response 

BTW: About antibiotics and pneumonia ... I agree that that is a huge factor for bacterial pneumonia, but I've heard conflicting reports on whether COVID-19 causes more serious VIRAL pneumonia. Correct?

53 minutes ago, CharonY said:

 And on the not a huge deal part, I should add that there is now significant evidence that even folks that recover from COVID-19 often show evidence of lung tissue scarring. There were expected reductions in lung performance, but so far it is not clear how much folks will recover.

New Scientist  also reported need for extensive mental rehab, and possible permanent cognitive impairment due to the drugs/gasses they use to keep you either anesthetized and/or anticonvulsive  while ventilated.  (muscles and limbs can act up and cause you to do nasty stuff to yourself, like fall out of bed, pull out IV, etc).

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, invasive-feces said:

BTW: About antibiotics and pneumonia ... I agree that that is a huge factor for bacterial pneumonia, but I've heard conflicting reports on whether COVID-19 causes more serious VIRAL pneumonia. Correct?

In the early days (i.e. a few months ago) antibiotics were commonly administered as the damages in the lungs seemed to favour bacterial infections. Now, recommendation seem to be monitoring for co-infections and administer as needed. There is indeed no special consideration regarding viral co-infections that I am aware of (which does not mean much).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please discuss (list) non-antibody protection against pathogens like coronavirus. 

The protection thru which tradit. AB testing may be ineffective or erroneous in CONCLUSION. In other words, COVID-19 may have gone thru an indiv. asymptomatically  ... been "dealt with" by the indiv's robust protection/immune system. But when it comes to tradit AB test, the indiv. would be categorized as "never exposed" to Sars Cov-2. How common might this be? 

Some this and other issues were raised on this recently-posted video. For example, immunity gained from NON-COVID-19 coronaviruses, etc:

 

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.