Coronavirus Updates

[Innula Zenovka]

If you're 75 years old with emphysema, you're not part of that "We are unlikely to die" cohort, and it's important to be aware that you need to take extra precautions to avoid infection, whereas your healthy 20-year-old nephew does not.

I think it's important to remember, though, that even a 75-year-old with emphysema is "unlikely to die" from covid-19, in the sense that her chances of survival are, as I understand it, at least 80% and probably better -- I don't quite understand the figures I've seen, since I'm not sure of the extent to which the risk factors are cumulative, but even on the most pessimistic reading, even for someone in a high-risk category, it's hardly a death sentence (it's better than the "slightly under two-thirds" chance of survival I was given when I was diagnosed with my particular form of cancer).

While I have no idea of the comparative risk factors involved, I'm comparing it with when my immune system was severely compromised during chemo- and radiotherapy, and I was warned in very clear terms about the need to avoid the risk of any sort of infection, to monitor my temperature closely and to phone a special emergency number for high-risk patients if I was running a fever.

It was inconvenient, and probably would have been more worrying had I not felt so ill anyway, because of the treatment, (and, I suspect, I would have felt more worried had I not been taking such strong opioid analgesics) but it was no more than an inconvenience.

Though, since I live alone, work from home, and can readily do all my shopping online when necessary (and can afford to), that's a lot easier for me to say that it would be for a lot of other people, I guess.

 

[Sid]

Minor quibble with the article. I fully understand that most people are unlikely to die from this coronavirus, but this blanket statement framing of the mortality glosses over the starkly different risk levels for different segments of the population. "WE are unlikely to die" makes it sound like it's just a roll of the dice, with equal chances of survival for everyone.

This is re-stated in a more accurate way in later graphs, but it's a still a sloppy intro, and the one most people are likely to read. I applaud the general attempt to reduce panic, but that shouldn't happen at the expense of the very real concerns of vulnerable populations. If you're 75 years old with emphysema, you're not part of that "We are unlikely to die" cohort, and it's important to be aware that you need to take extra precautions to avoid infection, whereas your healthy 20-year-old nephew does not.

Yes, there are people who are part of a more vulnerable group. I'm part of it myself.
But it doesn't mean IMHO, that a whole economy has to come to a halt if needed to stop the spreading of the virus. Efforts should be made (and are made), but not up to every price IMHO. And there is certainly no need to flood everybody with every snippet of a story about the virus that is out there.

People who are part of a vulnerable group need to carefully weigh what is best for them personally to do and what to stay away from.

For me that means: go my way as usual, avoid the flood of sensational news coverage, keep an eye on what the Dutch health authorities have to say on the Dutch situation and wash my hands every time I come home and whipe the door handles I've touched on my way to the sink. That is all for now.
There might be the moment, where I have to decide to stay at home (as much as possible) for a certain period, if containment of the virus fails in the end and there are large numbers of infected people everywhere.

Am I afraid or in panic? No. Just cautious.
Of course I hope to see the next seasons of Midsomer Murders and Tatort as well, but life is a risky business.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Coronavirus UK: NHS England to give GP surgeries protective equipment

All practices in England to be issued with kit to help protect staff from virus

www.theguardian.com

Also, from the article

On Friday, GP surgeries were told by NHS England to start conducting as many remote consultations as possible, replacing patient visits with phone, video, online or text contact.

Only 1% of the 340m appointments a year with GPs and other practice staff are currently carried out by video, such as Skype.

The change could last for several months, as experts believe the virus may not peak until April or May, and could last until June or July.

The practice where I'm registered has had a system like that in place for a couple of years now -- so long as I phone before 4.30 pm, even for something non-urgent, I'm guaranteed a call-back that day, during a specified time-slot, from one of the doctors there, and promised an appointment that day or the day after if, after the initial telephone consultation, she thinks it's necessary.

It works really well -- the few times I've needed to use it, I've been given the advice I would have expected anyway, and had a prescription emailed to my nominated local pharmacy (who will deliver for me if I ask them), but it's very reassuring and convenient to have it confirmed without having to make an appointment and attend the surgery.

ETA (made me laugh, anyway, despite the fact he's one of Boris Johnson's ministers)

 

[Kara Spengler]

I just googled bleach as a hand cleanser. Answer: don’t.

Yeah, BAD idea. There are some vids on making hand sanitizer but have not looked at them to see how they are.

 

[Kara Spengler]

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Umm, why would they see an increase?

 

[Kara Spengler]

Minor quibble with the article. I fully understand that most people are unlikely to die from this coronavirus, but this blanket statement framing of the mortality glosses over the starkly different risk levels for different segments of the population. "WE are unlikely to die" makes it sound like it's just a roll of the dice, with equal chances of survival for everyone.

This is re-stated in a more accurate way in later graphs, but it's a still a sloppy intro, and the one most people are likely to read. I applaud the general attempt to reduce panic, but that shouldn't happen at the expense of the very real concerns of vulnerable populations. If you're 75 years old with emphysema, you're not part of that "We are unlikely to die" cohort, and it's important to be aware that you need to take extra precautions to avoid infection, whereas your healthy 20-year-old nephew does not.

Yes, that is something I get annoyed with too. When people say it is probably not much of a problem if you are young and healthy. What if those two words do not apply?

 

[Essence Lumin]

Umm, why would they see an increase?

The article mentions people not wanting to use public transit.

 

[Essence Lumin]

The article mentions people not wanting to use public transit. Also less drivers.

 

[Caliandris]

Minor quibble with the article. I fully understand that most people are unlikely to die from this coronavirus, but this blanket statement framing of the mortality glosses over the starkly different risk levels for different segments of the population. "WE are unlikely to die" makes it sound like it's just a roll of the dice, with equal chances of survival for everyone.

This is re-stated in a more accurate way in later graphs, but it's a still a sloppy intro, and the one most people are likely to read. I applaud the general attempt to reduce panic, but that shouldn't happen at the expense of the very real concerns of vulnerable populations. If you're 75 years old with emphysema, you're not part of that "We are unlikely to die" cohort, and it's important to be aware that you need to take extra precautions to avoid infection, whereas your healthy 20-year-old nephew does not.

I utterly agree. If panic means that people will be careful about staying home when sick and will wash their hands more, and will avoid passing around the infection in the way that has happened in Italy, I'm all for panic.

People in general are absolutely oblivious to the fact that something that may be minor for them would be serious for someone with an immune insufficiency. If keeping it on the front pages means people take the idea of passing infections to other people seriously, then good.

The risk if you have diabetes, immune insufficiency or suppression or a whole host of other problems is very much greater than the risk if you are young and fit. If you are over eighty, the risk of dying is between 14 and 16% of those who contract the infection. If we allow it to run wild in the population and don't take care, our health systems of ALL types and structures are going to be overwhelmed.

Given that I am over sixty and I have a son who is immune suppressed, I'm getting pretty sick of the comments about deaths being an elderly person with underlying health problems, as though that information makes it all right then. Don't worry - they were old and sick anyway! AND?

 

[eku zhong]

Anyone with biochem or medical knowledge who can offer alternatives to hand sanitizer? I waited too long - last weekend there was no problem finding it, but I forgot to pick them up and had to google and to find some alternatives:

I got a couple hundred Benzalkonium Chloride hand wipes on Amazon which work as well as alcohol hand sanitizers (from what I've read); they're not sold out and came to only $13. I had accidentally stumbled on some research findings relating them to hand sanitizing, and lucked out on Amazon. Curiosly, searching Amazon for finds almost nothing the mentioned wipes, but a google search led me directly to the amazon order page for them.

I can use some cpap mask wipes in a zip-lock baggie, and lens disinfectant spray until they arive... I think they'd be effective [not sure about both of those, , I'll have to research], and they're still in stock at normal prices.

EDIT: more research: Benzalkonium Chloride is better than nothing, but isn't as effective as 60% alcohol based sanitizer. I haven't found any research papers comparing the two (my medical research skills suck). It also seems the medical field prefers alcohol-based just as much from familiarity and well-known prescribed, effective procedures over much else. If it works, don't change. Also Benzalkonium chloride promotes anti-bacterial resistance as opposed to alcohol based solutions which don't, so it can only be a bridge solution until alcohol based sanitizers are available again.

I can put 91% alcohol in a hand-sized spray bottle I guess. Rough on the hands but can't be much worse than Minnesota windchill. Maybe I can add some Aloe vera gel so long as I make sure it keeps the alcohol concentration at 60%, which means I'll be adding as little as possible to keep on the safe side of that number.

https://www.who.int/gpsc/5may/Guide_to_Local_Production.pdf

 

[Isabeau]

I think many are thick headed and have to be told over and over again about the risks for the population, because they do not see the direct risk to themselves and aren’t “panicked” enough, and those who are quicker to understand get irritated to be told the same thing everyday (we know! Enough!)

 

[Beebo Brink]

Also, I wish people would define what they mean by "panic" in the context of discussion. If the worse thing panic brings about is a few empty shelves at Costco, so what? It's an inconvenience, and possibly even silly, but so what if you can't buy a bottle of hand sanitizer? Deploring this aspect of "panic" isn't really worth the bother.

If panic means you cancel a cruise vacation or an airline trip, I recognize that the companies may abhor panic, but I take a jaundiced view of that problem. We all have the right NOT to travel. These are industries -- especially the airlines industry -- whose very existence is threatening our ecosystems and exacerbating climate change. The financial pain they are complaining about now highlights why mitigating climate change is so very difficult. In a sane world we'd take this opportunity to permanently downsize them.

If panic means people are buying masks and supplies that are needed by hospitals and healthcare workers, THAT is a specific problem that needs to be addressed. But this is such a persistent and predictable problem that good planning should just assume that this will happen, because it will.

 

[Essence Lumin]

 

[Sredni Eel]

Anyone with biochem or medical knowledge who can offer alternatives to hand sanitizer? I waited too long - last weekend there was no problem finding it, but I forgot to pick them up and had to google and to find some alternatives:

 

[Beebo Brink]

Gloves aren't useful -- you're still picking up germs. So if you touch your face, same result.

 

[Archer]

Interview with Virus Expert

“is the most frightening disease I've ever encountered in my career...because of the combination of infectiousness & a lethality that appears to be many-fold higher than flu.”

 

[Sredni Eel]

so much for 'what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas'

To be fair, they did recently change their tagline. Coincidence? I think not!

 

[Pamela]

Gloves aren't useful -- you're still picking up germs. So if you touch your face, same result.

They are good for when you go out and pick up germs, then dispose of them before you get out of the car. I have an extremely vulnerable family member, and life is going to be very different for us starting now.

 

[Arilynn]

From Stat: At Harvard forum, three who know warn of ‘most daunting virus’ in half a century

For a veteran epidemiologist, an authority on homeland security, and a global health reporter, the outbreak of the novel coronavirus is the type of emergency they had long anticipated.
...
“It’s the most daunting virus that we’ve contended with in half a century or more,” Michael Mina, an epidemiologist at Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, said at a panel discussion Friday at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government.
...
The spread of the new coronavirus has been compared to influenza, which also causes a respiratory illness. But, as the panelists pointed out, there are no drugs or vaccines yet for treating or preventing the virus, known as SARS-CoV-2, as there are for flu. In addition, we are exposed to different flu strains throughout our lives, which help us build immunity. No one had immunity to this new virus.

“We have an entirely susceptible population,” Mina said. “The potential for this to burn through a population very quickly is very high without extraordinary measures.”
...
Mina said the fragmented U.S. health care system leaves him worried about the cohesion of a response.

“I don’t want to sound defeatist here, but the state of our health care system, the way we have privatized everything about it for the most part, is going to seriously impact our ability,” he said, adding that, “we have no ability to create out of the blue new hospital beds. We can’t even test appropriately.”
...
“I’m really concerned about people living in long-term care facilities. If this virus gets into long-term care facilities [as it has in the Seattle area], it will be really bad. I’m worried about people who stay in homeless shelters. I’m worried about people who work in retail. I’m worried about people who don’t have the money to stockpile food because they don’t have extra money. I’m worried about the fact that there isn’t much social cohesion right now.”
...

 

[Caete]

Hotel collapse traps 70 in eastern China