Personally, I like the pangolin theory.
1 Like
Closed cases is where the true mortality rate comes from. Using 0.8 percent and basing it on the known mortality rate and spread of the flu we are still looking at 800,000. That’s assuming that Corona isn’t any more contagious than the current flu outbreak. All I know is that if I’m diagnosed, I’m going to ask if they can throw in a little Lyme to go with it.
2 Likes
I have a dozen limes on the counter here, will put your name on one 
but lets hope it wont come down to that…
2 Likes
What you’re talking about is the Case Fatality Rate (CFR), not the mortality rate.
We already know that Coronavirus has an R0 of around 3 (possibly 2.5) - whereas the seasonal flu has an R0 of 1.3 - so it is much more contagious than the flu. How much is that? Say you infect 1.3 people with the flu, 10 people out you will have been the cause of the infection of approximately 56 people. With Coronavirus you would have been the cause of infection for around 88,000 people. (Or something close to that - whatever the numbers are, SARS-CoV-2 is a lot more infectious)
2 Likes
I read (and this chart seems to roughly reflect) that one Bat strain appears somewhat closer than the Pangolin strains. Have not read of Pangolin hypotheses seeming to have gained much ground (over Bats) in published speculations. Any references ? (Or), have I “read too much” into your statement ?
These numbers are grossly exaggerated, in America due to lack of tests we are basically only testing people that are already in the hospital and we are positive have the virus, has nobody seen the Iceland study? They are testing more people per capita than anyone else, their numbers indicate nearly half of infected people have no symptoms, As in they don’t even know they have the virus. Just that figure alone can cut your mortality rates in half, not to mention that the numbers still indicate that 70+ percent of people that do have symptoms have a mild experience…don’t get me wrong, this virus is bad, but it certainly isn’t kill 5% of the population bad, and anyplace that has numbers like that is simply indicating that they are not testing anyone that’s not already in critical condition…This is why several estimates in the USA put the number of actual infected people at 10x what we have as confirmed infected, that would be moving the decimal point one spot to the left on your mortality rates
5 Likes
What we’re learning from Iceland this week is as fascinating as it is crucial to fighting the coronavirus epidemic: That somewhere in the neighborhood of half of everyone testing positive for the coronavirus will show absolutely no symptoms.
“Early results from deCode Genetics indicate that a low proportion of the general population has contracted the virus and that about half of those who tested positive are non-symptomatic ,” said [Iceland’s chief epidemiologist Thorolfur] Guðnason. “The other half displays very moderate cold-like symptoms.”
Good find @Fishaddict420
6 Likes
2 Likes
2 Likes
Just found out
I hope I can get my errands done between tomorrow and Wednesday…
Anyone who fails to comply with this ordinance faces a fine of at least $100.
I have 15 orders to finish by tonight… and I will be pushing them out to the post office.
3 Likes
1 Like
Well I really don’t know where to put this. Daughter #3 is a microbiologist for a major hospital chain in the US. With the COV test kits beginning to released in quantity this was released from one of my daughters co-worker.
6 Likes
@rcleven thanks for that, I didn’t know about a testers shortage…
Right now, in this pandemic, we are at a shortage for testing supplies. This is something many media sources are reporting daily, and leads us all to believe that the biggest hindrance to testing volume in the US directly hinges on the availability of testing supplies… But this is not the only hindrance, and perhaps it is time to shine light on another hidden shortcoming in this country.
We are at a severe shortage of testing professionals, and we have been for many years. Our profession is one that tends to hide in the background despite our integral roles in disease research, patient care, treatment, and diagnoses… and this is because we tend to be the introverts or the nerds of healthcare, and we like it this way. Most other healthcare professionals don’t even realize we require 5-7 years of college education.
Last week, in a 6 day period, the US performed 335,000 COVID-19/SARS2 tests. At the time, there were 62 labs capable of performing this testing. Each test takes approximately 15 minutes of hands-on time, and these 62 labs employ approximately 1600 lab scientists. This means 83,750 hours of testing occurred across 1600 people. To accomplish this, each scientist would have required 52 hours to accomplish this volume ON TOP of all the other testing that is required on a normal basis, since I think we all realize other diseases don’t stop due to a single viral outbreak. And this is all assuming none of these professionals get sick.
6 Likes
(March 10, 2020): ASM Expresses Concern about Coronavirus Test Reagent Shortages
One challenge that has come to light is the supply shortage for SARS-CoV-2 PCR reagents. We are deeply concerned that as the number of tests increases dramatically over the coming weeks, clinical labs will be unable to deploy them without these critical components. Increased demand for testing has the potential to exhaust supplies needed to perform the testing itself. This could include chemicals or plastics, for example, and could affect tests developed and offered by clinical or public health laboratories and/or (when they become available in the United States), commercial tests. …
… we know from past experience that reagent shortages can persist, and we understand there are limits on how rapidly companies can realistically accelerate production of the necessary reagents. This is especially true when additional time is required for quality assurance and control. …
… Beyond the immediate resource needs, the current coronavirus public health emergency illustrates the importance of sustained investments across multiple government agencies, including the CDC, NIH, ASPR and the FDA; and it underscores the need for regulatory flexibility …
3 Likes
I wonder how many of the responsible are aware of the Danish findings… They created a way to do the tests with very few (if any) reagents - it’s fast and cheap…
Only caveat is that it is slightly less sensitive. Meaning it “only” detects with 97.4% certainty…
EDIT: Last bit is apparently wrong. Sensitivity is 97.4% and accuracy is 98.3%
7 Likes
In my (limited) understanding, the reagent(s) in question are ones required to extract the antigen RNA from the sampled material(s) - in the case of performing PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) assays (which appears to have been the original testing method utilized).
1 Like
Precisely - Those reagents aren’t needed with this method. You simply heat the samples to 98 deg C for 5 minutes - this destroys everything but the RNA 
Title of the last paper (it was shortened) is: An alternative workflow for molecular detection of SARS-CoV-2 - escape from the NA extraction kit-shortage
The “Wild West” of all the “private players” in the diagnostics industry vying for monetary profits - rather than being some model of “egalitarian efficiencies” - seems more likely a ghoulish battle for such profits. The good old Libertarian playing field, with Trump as criminal Oligarch in the midst, schilling like a Fuller Brush man right and left for “industry”, pumping his imagined “public image”, seems like utter disgrace.
All in all it’s just another brick in the wall.
All in all you’re just another brick in the wall
“You! Yes, you! Stand still laddy!”
-Pink Floyd, The Wall
This is the test being used in my area of the US. It says they are ramped up to make 50,000 units a day.
3 Likes