New modeling and data from a community testing program are providing a clearer picture of the prevalence of novel coronavirus infections in King County, as well as additional evidence that transmission rates continue to decline thanks to social distancing.
Researchers say the number of confirmed cases in the county - about 6,300 as of Friday - represents the tip of a much larger iceberg. In reality, about 46,000 people have likely been infected since the local epidemic began, according to information released Friday by Public Health - Seattle & King County. That translates into about 2% of county residents.
But the estimate, in a new report from the Bellevue-based Institute for Disease Modeling, comes with an uncertainty range between 15,000 and 108,000. Another model, from researchers at MIT, estimates more than 105,000 people statewide have been infected, compared with about 14,600 confirmed cases.
Note: that the Seattle area (including King and Snohomish counties) was (nearly, the prior exceptions having been identified in Santa Clara, CA) “ground-zero”; and that the early “lock-downs”, etc. in the area are thought to have mitigated new infectious spread of SARS-CoV-2. Thus, any similar “icebergs” in other urban areas of the US might be likely to be somewhat (to considerably) proportionally “larger”.
Governors around the country are attempting to restart the economy by easing restrictions put in place to prevent the spread of COVID-19. The prospect of returning to “normal” amid a pandemic has businesses lobbying Congress to grant them sweeping immunity from civil liability for failure to adequately protect workers and customers from infection.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has warned of an “avalanche” of lawsuits that will stymie economic recovery efforts if Congress does not act quickly. He said he won’t let another coronavirus bailout pass the Senate unless it also shields companies from coronavirus-related liability. …
My research on the role of civil lawsuits in reducing foodborne illness outbreaks suggests that fears of excessive litigation are unwarranted. What’s more, the modest liability exposure that does exist is important to ensuring businesses take reasonable coronavirus precautions as they reopen their doors.
Exaggerated fears: Even for business owners who fail to take reasonable precautions, the prospect of a lawsuit is still remote. To successfully sue a business for COVID-19 transmission, a patron would have to prove that he or she contracted COVID-19 from the business and not from some other source. However, most people infected with COVID-19 currently have no reliable way of identifying the source of their infection. The gap of three to 11 days between infection and illness, the difficulty of recalling all of one’s contacts during that interval and limited testing for virus present formidable obstacles to establishing causation.
A business would not be liable to patrons who knowingly and voluntarily assumed the risk of infection. Patrons of crowded stores/businesses where many customers and employees are not wearing masks, for example, would not have viable legal claims even if they can prove carelessness and causation. …
… the prospect of liability for COVID-19 transmission is likely to encourage business owners to invest in cost-effective precautions, follow the advice of public health authorities, adopt industry safety standards and use common sense. Shielding business owners from this liability is one kind of immunity that will not help end the current crisis.
Could we defeat COVID-19 in 10 weeks, rather than letting the pandemic beleaguer us for 18 months?
Amid the coronavirus pandemic, many Americans have embraced the idea of “flattening the curve,” or slowing the spread of the virus over a number of months so that fewer people become infected and need health care at any given time.
A key assumption of this strategy is that around the same number of people will eventually be infected with COVID-19, but just over a longer time period. Many models predict this period, which would require intermittent lockdowns, could last well over 18 months.
Initially, I heard with the covid outbreak that smokers/vapers were at higher risk. New studies are coming out. Maybe I should up my nicotine/PG mix percentages.Thoughts?
Mew, the recent Nicotine related research paper (that daath posted a link to above in this this thread) is highly preliminary and overall much more “speculative” than at all “definitive”. The “smokers” thought to be a bit less prone to developing ARDS from COVID-19 have only around 7,000 chemical molecules (other than Nicotine) to also consider. No, Propylene Glycol does not appear to be at all likely to be considered a “prophylactic” against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Related links already posted (by me, and others) exist earlier on within this thread. Let me know if you want me to search and find them for you.
… some preliminary but inconclusive evidence suggests lower prevalence of smoking among COVID-19 cases than expected (considering the smoking prevalence in the whole population) but somewhat higher rate of severity and progression of disease once the smoker is infected. But the evidence is weak and inconclusive, therefore we need to exercise caution. There is no evidence on any effects of e-cigarettes on coronavirus infectivity and disease progression, and we cannot exclude the possibility that the use of propylene glycol might have some beneficial effects.
.
Regarding the best PG information found (previously posted by another unknown ELR member):
The air cleansing experiments conducted in the 1940’s only involved bacteria and the influenza virus, there is no way without experimental evidence to infer if this could happen with SARSCoV-2 and in the conditions of environmental e-cigarette aerosol. Many viruses (and there is ample variation on this) cannot survive long time outside the protective envelope of a humid medium (saliva droplets) or outside their host cell in body tissues. However, it is not known if this is the case also with SARS-CoV-2.
Seems it’s already being considered according to Daath’s posted article.
“Besides gums and patches, nicotine can be administered though inhalation, with the use of a nebulizer or other aerosol systems, if necessary. Nicotine administration could be added on top of antiviral or other therapeutic options for COVID-19.”
Yes, some people really like seeing click-bits in the news that “Ethanol can improve one’s health” (not), and “Chocolate is wonder medicine” (but only if you eat over 12 pounds of it each day, etc). Do you find yourself able to smoke/vape when trying shake-off a nasty Rhinovirus or Influenza ? I generally do not. I can assure you that SARS-CoV-2 is not something that folks would be well advised to give any sort of chance to take hold in one’s (particularly lower portions of the) lungs. That PG, VG, and Nicotine (not to mention various flavoring molecules) are fully capable of irritating (and thus compromising) pulmonary immune-functions and health is only denied by those having some “vested interests” in those practices. And aging “vapers” who (previously, or concurrently) smoked for long periods of time are especially and particularly vulnerable to various compromised pulmonary conditions. (I would) take nothing for granted.
.
That is (perhaps) a bit “lightweight” (on the alkaloid-scale) for the situation. I myself would hope for somewhat (if not much more) more efficacious Mu-receptor agonists, that will here remain unnamed.
I agree. No one should come away from reading any of those reports of nicotine/pg use as a safe pass from contracting the virus or lessened effects from it. But it would be an incredible “discovery” if any of the science eventually backs it up. A vaper can only dream at this point.
Good to hear that you have a fine mind (which I have already surmised), and that it is “screwed on straight”. Jest remember that CNN = UN = Bad Santa, and COVID-19 = 5G = Zinc Flouride, and you should do just fine in the coming “Red Night of Dunning-Kruger”. Whatever you do, do not let them extract the Gold from any dental fillings ! You’ll need that precious element to “beam up” to Mothership !
Unfortunately, based on this first trial, it is doubtful that remdesivir will be the “magic pill” people have been hoping for. Remdesivir is not something people will be able to swallow at the first sign of COVID disease and feel better. It’s not a pill and it’s not magical either.
