Coronavirus General Discussion (no politics, no flamewars!)

All you arguing gene pool stuff. You do realize that once you reproduce, there is no longer any affect to the gene pool. So, once you have offspring and happen to catch the virus and perish, it has no effect to the gene pool. For Covid specifically, as it impacts the older population fatally, it does not strengthen the gene pool an they have most likely already reproduced.

Well, this is all riveting but it's gorgeous outside and I am going to take some photos of my lock-down world. The birds are showing much greater activity without our presence. All around the world animals are going where they feared to tread before. Time to go and enjoy some of that - if I get a good shot, I'll share!!

I started thinking, on a different track...
If it is a cytokine storm which interferes with lung function in absorbing oxygen in severe cases of COVID-19, why don't they try cytokine suppression rather than simply ramming more volume of air into the lungs with ventilators?!
Ventilators might not be doing any good, vs. the speculation by some doctors that they do harm to the lungs.
Wouldn't cytokin suppression make the patients gasp for oxygen less, because oxygen gets absorbed when the cytokines are not overwhelming the lung tissues?
I know that corticosteroids have been tried in more than one viral ourbreak, with questionabe efficacy. Maybe some slightly different approach or agent would be called for?

Wilt wrote in post #19050714
.
Like ethics debates, the winner may not be in 'the truth' but in how convincingly each side supports its selected position.
.

.
.
I don't think there is any "winner", nor any "loser".

It is simply that the things that mean most to me - my values and priorities - are different than the things that are important to most others.

I put pleasure, freedom, comfort and convenience way, way way ahead of safety, security, and health.

Others clearly value safety, preservation of life, and health more than they do the small pleasures and freedoms within life. . If I can't have all, or most, of the pleasures, freedoms, and conveniences that I like, then I would just as soon be dead. . Why be here if I can't have things my way?

If I have to give up a lot of the things that I like, in order to keep others from getting sick and dying, then at some point it just isn't going to be worth it for me to be alive anymore, because the net amount of pleasure in my life will become smaller than the net amount of sacrifice and inconvenience.

We are here to enjoy life, and once the ability to do so is compromised past a certain point, then we just as well may not be here any longer ..... right? . Why hang on to life it it isn't going to be really freaking great?! . Life is only worth itself if the quality of that life is of a certain level. . Each of us has our own different ideas about just what that level is.


.

You might want to check what the WHO figures for Sweden are right now. They went through the roof.
According the the WHO report for 20th April:
https://www.who.int …-19.pdf?sfvrsn=fcf0670b​_4

Sweden (with a population of 10.23million) has 14,384 cases about 500 of which are new cases and 1540 deaths: that's a mortality rate of about 10.7%, which is very high despite having an advanced health care system.

Their delay in recognizing the need for countermeasures also impacted their testing program, which is very limited (their status on community transmission is "Pending" - i.e. they have no idea) , thus it is likely that there are many unreported cases and levels of community transmission yet to surface or be reported - if much more testing is done it may well reveal the missing cases and return the mortality rates to the more normal 3-4% of infections. To reach a state of control they will need an extremely strict lock-down policy for some time, and have a massive increase in critical care capability and testing.

Considering the low testing in Sweden, I don't think their numbers are at the moment through the roof. Looking at these sources:
https://cmmid.github.i​o …global_cfr_esti​mates.html
https://www.arcgis.com …740fd4029942346​7b48e9ecf6
Then Sveden probably identifies about 7% of the real cases. 15322/0.07 = aprox 220000 cases which corresponds to a perceived fatality ratio of 1765/220000 = below 1%. This is not too bad compared to many other data I've seen. How this develops over the next few weeks is another matter.

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #19050348
Was just reading this in the Guardian:

Only a tiny proportion of the global population – maybe as few as 2% or 3% – appear to have antibodies in the blood showing they have been infected with Covid-19, according to the World Health Organization, a finding that bodes ill for hopes that herd immunity will ease the exit from lockdown.

Link to article: https://www.theguardia​n.com …covid-19-without-symptoms

As time goes on, the medical systems are strengthening their ability to deal with the coronavirus, in regard to both equipment and technique. The medical systems won't be overwhelmed any more, and bad outcomes will be reduced. This should allow a gradual reduction of restrictions. The infection rate will increase, but systems will be able to cope, and the death rate will be lower. Immunity will build, and that will accelerate as time goes on. Eventually the disease will burn itself out.

drmaxx wrote in post #19050734
.
Considering the low testing in Sweden, I don't think their numbers are at the moment through the roof.
.

.
Most of the people I talk to here in my community are using Sweden a a model that they think the rest of the world should follow. . They say this with a knowledge that Sweden has lost a few more people than most countries, but think that the end result, everything considered, is more desirable than what has been happening here in the U.S. with the restrictions and everything.


.

Actually, discussing religion is always forbidden on this forum, much like politics.

Gregsiem wrote in post #19050756
.
There....politics and flaming is disallowed in this thread, but no one said anything about religion
.

.
Actually, someone has said something about that. . Did you happen to read the rules before making your first post, as required?

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

.

Wilt wrote in post #19050723
I started thinking, on a different track...
If it is a cytokine storm which interferes with lung function in absorbing oxygen in severe cases of COVID-19, why don't they try cytokine suppression rather than simply ramming more volume of air into the lungs with ventilators?!
Ventilators might not be doing any good, vs. the speculation by some doctors that they do harm to the lungs.
Wouldn't cytokin suppression make the patients gasp for oxygen less, because oxygen gets absorbed when the cytokines are not overwhelming the lung tissues?
I know that corticosteroids have been tried in more than one viral ourbreak, with questionabe efficacy. Maybe some slightly different approach or agent would be called for?

They are looking at that already-
https://www.thelancet.​com …-6736(20)30628-0/fulltext
https://www.nature.com​/articles/s41577-020-0312-7
About a month ago:
https://www.biolifesas​.org …-inflammatory-strategies/
Overview from 27 March:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.n​ih.gov/pmc/articles/PM​C7105343/

Capn Jack wrote in post #19050763
They are looking at that already-
https://www.thelancet.​com …-6736(20)30628-0/fulltext
https://www.nature.com​/articles/s41577-020-0312-7
About a month ago:
https://www.biolifesas​.org …-inflammatory-strategies/
Overview from 27 March:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.n​ih.gov/pmc/articles/PM​C7105343/

I am willing to share the Nobel Prize in Medicine !

drmaxx wrote in post #19050734
Considering the low testing in Sweden, I don't think their numbers are at the moment through the roof. Looking at these sources:
https://cmmid.github.i​o …global_cfr_esti​mates.html
https://www.arcgis.com …740fd4029942346​7b48e9ecf6
Then Sveden probably identifies about 7% of the real cases. 15322/0.07 = aprox 220000 cases which corresponds to a perceived fatality ratio of 1765/220000 = below 1%. This is not too bad compared to many other data I've seen. How this develops over the next few weeks is another matter.

Another way of looking at it is this:
Nearly 1600 people have died in Sweden, making it the 14th worst affected country globally.

Sweden's death rate is 156.4 per million compared to 62.84 in Denmark, 28.41 in Norway and 17.69 in Finland, which all have much more severe lock-downs. Its death toll is roughly 2.6 times the combined total of its Scandinavian neighbours.
NZ death rate per million is 2.65 or, to put it another way, Sweden, practising an open society is 59 times the NZ death rate.

Denmark .. 364
Norway..... 154
Finland .......98

soeren wrote in post #19050460
So if being infected does not lead to immunity how does that speak for effieciency of a vaccine???

Not very well, I'm afraid.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19050709
.
To me, it seems like biological Darwinism, not social Darwinism.

It is simply biology doing what it does, without intentional interference one way or the other from humans. . Why are so many okay with this principle at work with other species in the animal kingdom, but horrified at the thought of it happening in the human population? . Are we not a member of the kingdom Animalia?

HUMAN TAXONOMY:
Kingdom: . Animalia
Phylum: . . Chordata
Class: . . . . Mammalia
Order: . . . . Primate
Family: . . . Hominidae
Genus: . . . Homo
Species: . sapiens

Do we somehow think that what we say is best for other species' populations is not good enough for us? . What's up with that kind of thinking, anyway?

.

i'm sorry tom, but this is just ridiculous...if we were just going by survival of our species, why do people wear glasses...they're weak, they should just die off...why have any hospitals at all, just let them die off...

yes at the end of the day humans are animals, but that doesn't mean we act like them...animals kill a rival, and that rivals offspring and then mate with them...should we start doing that?

DreDaze wrote in post #19050854
why do people wear glasses?

People wear glasses, I presume, so that they can see with greater resolution. I suppose that the reason glasses exist is because people can profit through the manufacture and sales of the glasses.
.

DreDaze wrote in post #19050854
why have any hospitals at all?

So that those who are wealthy enough to pay for medical care can have it available to them. . And also because many people are able to profit by having jobs and businesses and investments in the medical fields. . When there is a demand for a good or service, then there will typically be a supply of that good or service. . That's Economics 101.
.

DreDaze wrote in post #19050854
yes at the end of the day humans are animals, but that doesn't mean we act like them...animals kill a rival, and that rivals offspring and then mate with them...should we start doing that?

That is a very complex question to answer. . I think it would require a lot of thought to come up with an answer, and honestly I don't feel like putting that kind of thought into it.

I suppose the answer to that question would depend on what view one sees the scenario from. . Someone looking at it through a purely scientific / biological lens may see it a certain way. . Someone else looking at it from a moral standpoint may see it differently. . And someone looking at it from an ethical position may come up with yet another answer.

.