Coronavirus

[Winstonm]

Abnormal clotting in Covid-19

Doctors treating the sickest Covid-19 patients have zeroed in on a new phenomenon: Some people have developed widespread blood clots, their lungs peppered with tiny blockages that prevent oxygen from pumping into the bloodstream and body.

[pescetom]

Abnormal clotting in Covid-19

 

This isn't something really new, medics in Italy commented on it a month ago.

The massive inflammation caused by the virus impact lungs directly but also blood, abnormal pressure and clotting can complicate pneumonia and also cause death in other ways.

[hrothgar]

So, looks like Trump might have figured out a new / better way to treat COVID-19

 

I couldn't quite figure out what he was talking about, but I think that it involves drinking lots of bleach or maybe injecting bleach or perhaps nebulizing bleach

[kenberg]

So, looks like Trump might have figured out a new / better way to treat COVID-19

 

I couldn't quite figure out what he was talking about, but I think that it involves drinking lots of bleach or maybe injecting bleach or perhaps nebulizing bleach

 

Drinking bleach would probably solve the problem.

[Winstonm]

Drinking bleach would probably solve the problem.

 

How do you get Trump to drink it?

[cherdano]

Hah, see! The libs are taking the bait! Again!! Brilliant!!!

[FelicityR]

An article from the joinzoe website that may be useful reference for older people (link here)

 

Whilst covid-19 might be the cause of additional ailments for the over 85s, any serious infection for anyone in that age group causes problems generally. People in that age group have weakened immune systems, and poorer lung and bowel health. A bacterial urinary tract infection (UTI) which is common amongst seniors causes delirium and confusion. That's why in later life it is so important to follow a good diet together with sensible vitamin and nutraceutical supplementation as the body is less able to repair itself on its own.

[shyams]

I saw a re-run of the daily briefing by Trump his team. The presentation by Bill Bryant (lasting approx. 6 minutes) was extremely interesting and I thought it provided useful indicators for actions the average corporation / person can take to reduce the risk of Covid transmission.

 

However, Trump's insane remarks immediately followed the presentation by Bryant thereby immediately relegating all useful information from the presentation to oblivion. Not one TV programme or News bulletin even mentioned the salient points from Bryant's presentation. Unfortunate!

[pilowsky]

I saw a re-run of the daily briefing by Trump his team. The presentation by Bill Bryant (lasting approx. 6 minutes) was extremely interesting and I thought it provided useful indicators for actions the average corporation / person can take to reduce the risk of Covid transmission.

 

However, Trump's insane remarks immediately followed the presentation by Bryant thereby immediately relegating all useful information from the presentation to oblivion. Not one TV programme or News bulletin even mentioned the salient points from Bryant's presentation. Unfortunate!

 

Just to be completely clear: you just explained that the person holding the office of President of the United States of America is making insane remarks, and the unfortunate thing is that somebody else's comments about sunlight which were also pretty unimportant compared with the remarks of Birx/Fauci and Redfield about getting your 'flu shot didn't get enough airtime? Did I get that right or should I be watching Faux (makes you sic) news?

[FelicityR]

I saw a re-run of the daily briefing by Trump his team. The presentation by Bill Bryant (lasting approx. 6 minutes) was extremely interesting and I thought it provided useful indicators for actions the average corporation / person can take to reduce the risk of Covid transmission.

 

However, Trump's insane remarks immediately followed the presentation by Bryant thereby immediately relegating all useful information from the presentation to oblivion. Not one TV programme or News bulletin even mentioned the salient points from Bryant's presentation. Unfortunate!

 

Donald Trump has just no idea. Suggesting UV light and disinfect to kill the virus inside the body just shows us how ignorant and uninformed the man is. On a more positive note:

 

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-hospital-cuts-covid-19-death-rates-with-black-boxes-for-sleep-disorder-11977789

 

Tracheostomy and ventilator intervention is commonplace in hospitals (especially in ICU units) but puts some patients at risk. Using a non-invasive CPAP machine for less severe corona cases could become the norm as time goes on.

[y66]

Damien Cave at NYT: Vanquish the Virus? Australia and New Zealand Aim to Show the Way

 

It all started with scientists. In Australia, as soon as China released the genetic code for the coronavirus in early January, pathologists in public health laboratories started sharing plans for tests. In every state and territory, they jumped ahead of politicians.

 

“It meant we could have a test up and running quickly that was reasonably comparable everywhere,” Dr. Collignon said.

 

The government then opened the budgetary floodgates to support suffering workers and add health care capacity. When infections started climbing, many of the labs and hospitals hired second and third rounds of scientists to help.

 

That collaboration set the tone. Many of the state and local task forces spurred on by Mr. Morrison’s early action have stayed in constant contact, drawing in academics who independently started to model the virus’s spread. Their findings, hashed out by email, text or group calls, have been funneled up to national decision makers.

 

The newly formed national cabinet has delivered a surprising level of consensus for a country with a loose federal system subject to high levels of discord among state premiers, whose roles and powers resemble those of American governors.

 

In late March, for example, Mr. Morrison announced an agreement to severely tighten restrictions, banning international travel and telling all Australians not working in essential services to stay home. Though there was some divergence, mostly over schools, state leaders expressed bipartisan support and have held the line even as case numbers plummeted.

 

In New Zealand, public health experts pushed for an even bolder move.

 

Dr. Michael Baker, a physician and professor at the University of Otago in Wellington, became a prominent voice outside the government pushing for elimination of the virus, not just its suppression.

 

He argued that New Zealand, an island nation with a limited number of cases, should think of the virus more like measles than influenza — something that should be made to disappear, with rare exceptions.

 

“The modelers said we had to go into lockdown for two months to have a high probability of eliminating it entirely,” he said. “You have to wait until the numbers are very low so you have the ability to stamp out an outbreak if it occurs.”

 

Worrying that the virus would spread too rapidly, Dr. Baker said he was racked with anxiety in the first few weeks after the initial case appeared in New Zealand. “We were on a knife’s edge,” he said. “Would we commit?”

 

Ms. Ardern announced on March 23 that the country would aim for elimination. Critics questioned whether it was possible, noting that there might be too many asymptomatic cases to guarantee elimination.

 

Dr. Baker responded by citing Taiwan, which has contained the outbreak to a point where socially distanced normal life has returned on a densely packed set of islands with over 23 million people.

 

“It’s a matter to get all the systems working,” Dr. Baker said. “The borders, the contact tracing, the testing, the surveillance.”

“This is certainly distinct from the United States,” said Dr. Peter Collignon, a physician and professor of microbiology at the Australian National University who has worked for the World Health Organization. 

[Winstonm]

Damien Cave at NYT: Vanquish the Virus? Australia and New Zealand Aim to Show the Way

 

“This is certainly distinct from the United States,” said Dr. Peter Collignon, a physician and professor of microbiology at the Australian National University

Yippie-Ky-A says tough-guy U.S.

[Winstonm]

This isn't something really new, medics in Italy commented on it a month ago.

The massive inflammation caused by the virus impact lungs directly but also blood, abnormal pressure and clotting can complicate pneumonia and also cause death in other ways.

 

I'm not sure if this increase in strokes in middle-aged and asymptomatic people is widely known, at least not in the U.S.

 

Now for the first time, three large U.S. medical centers are preparing to publish data on the stroke phenomenon. The numbers are small, only a few dozen per location, but they provide new insights into what the virus does to our bodies.

[FelicityR]

I'm not sure if this increase in strokes in middle-aged and asymptomatic people is widely known, at least not in the U.S.

 

 

Surprisingly, inflammation of the sinuses (sinusitis) can lead to a stroke for many younger people. And whilst coronavirus doesn't directly cause sinus problems - as far as I am aware - given that the pathogen is air-based, it's probable it is contributing to strokes in a similar way. Even general inflammation in the body can lead to strokes, and we are now aware that younger healthy patients have been subject to cytokine storms as a result of contracting covid-19.

[Winstonm]

Surprisingly, inflammation of the sinuses (sinusitis) can lead to a stroke for many younger people. And whilst coronavirus doesn't directly cause sinus problems - as far as I am aware - given that the pathogen is air-based, it's probable it is contributing to strokes in a similar way. Even general inflammation in the body can lead to strokes, and we are now aware that younger healthy patients have been subject to cytokine storms as a result of contracting covid-19.

In the article a surgeon is said to have observed multiple clot formation in the brain as he was removing a larger one.

 

As Oxley, an interventional neurologist, began the procedure to remove the clot, he observed something he had never seen before. On the monitors, the brain typically shows up as a tangle of black squiggles — “like a can of spaghetti,” he said — that provide a map of blood vessels. A clot shows up as a blank spot. As he used a needlelike device to pull out the clot, he saw new clots forming in real-time around it.

 

“This is crazy,” he remembers telling his boss.

 

The thrust of these articles is that Covid-19 affects multiple organs and is not simply a respiratory virus.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/coronavirus-destroys-lungs-but-doctors-are-finding-its-damage-in-kidneys-hearts-and-elsewhere/2020/04/14/7ff71ee0-7db1-11ea-a3ee-13e1ae0a3571_story.html

[FelicityR]

I'm surprised - well, I haven't been able to find any journalist who has speculated thus - on whether Boris Johnson's own personal experience with being ill with coronavirus, including hospital treatment and prolonged recuperation, will effect how he now views the UK's own covid-19 epidemic. The Sunday online papers just basically indicated he will be back at the helm soon, and it's been confirmed that he is already back at 10 Downing Street as I write.

 

There was a feeling amongst many people in the UK that without Mr Johnson the government went into the doldrums, repeating basic diktats that the public must obey during the lockdown. The Conservatives, despite their daily briefings with Cabinet figures, seemed rudderless without Johnson.

 

However, I wonder if what has happened to him will change the course of the future policies of controlling this epidemic. Yes, he will still have senior politicians and scientists to advise him, and Boris Johnson has always been a bullish character, but I have a gut feeling that he's now going to err on the side of caution, having experienced the epidemic on the front line himself.

 

There's an undercurrent of feeling in this country that if we can't get the country back on its feet quickly, both the general public and the financial sector will suffer enormously. Already there has been a human cost beyond coronavirus with many hospital appointments and treatments for ill patients, including those with cancer, cancelled.

 

I have spoken to quite a few people over the past few weeks, and many of the younger ones are worried about debt, (un)employment, rising costs, etc. in a country where people have taken on large debts already to maintain a reasonable standard of living.

 

The fallout from what happens next could be far worse than what has happened in the previous three months. It will take time to restart all aspects of society, I feel, and despite the best efforts of the Boris Johnson and the government, whatever they decide, it's going to a long road of recovery for many people probably for many years to come.

[PeterAlan]

I'm surprised - well, I haven't been able to find any journalist who has speculated thus - on whether Boris Johnson's own personal experience with being ill with coronavirus, including hospital treatment and prolonged recuperation, will effect how he now views the UK's own covid-19 epidemic.

Andrew Rawnsley wrote this piece on Sunday for The Observer's / Guardian's website (and presumably the print edition). I expect there will be others to be found.

[FelicityR]

Andrew Rawnsley wrote this piece on Sunday for The Observer's / Guardian's website (and presumably the print edition). I expect there will be others to be found.

 

Thank you, Peter. I read the Guardian (amongst others) online but completely missed this :( (How? Goodness only knows.)

[Cyberyeti]

I wonder what people make of this article, I've not come across the source before this, but it adds a perspective I haven't seen so far:

 

https://thebulwark.com/we-cannot-reopen-america/?fbclid=IwAR1NbUU8De5CSR7UQsFvVY3OszBk5ZL5Aag_0lGRVw5hZ8msT4Weg7jg0uQ

[hrothgar]

I wonder what people make of this article, I've not come across the source before this, but it adds a perspective I haven't seen so far:

 

https://thebulwark.com/we-cannot-reopen-america/?fbclid=IwAR1NbUU8De5CSR7UQsFvVY3OszBk5ZL5Aag_0lGRVw5hZ8msT4Weg7jg0uQ

 

I think that it is well considered

 

I think that there is a lot of wishful thinking going on

[FelicityR]

I wonder what people make of this article, I've not come across the source before this, but it adds a perspective I haven't seen so far:

 

https://thebulwark.com/we-cannot-reopen-america/?fbclid=IwAR1NbUU8De5CSR7UQsFvVY3OszBk5ZL5Aag_0lGRVw5hZ8msT4Weg7jg0uQ

 

Yes, it is a very considered piece of journalism. Not scaremongering but stating the facts. However, I have a feeling once the lockdown is over for most life has to go on. Pockets of coronavirus out there or not.

 

The Dalai Lama said something along the lines of "Choose to be an optimist. It feels better." Did people stop flying due to 9/11? For a short time after they did, but gradually with all the safeguards now at the airports they came back.

 

I know coronavirus is different. But there will be safeguards in place initially. Every country will have to adapt: that's saying the obvious. Two World Wars didn't extinguish the human spirit. People will suffer due to coronavirus even after the lockdown is lifted, and perhaps for years after, that's a fact. But it's happening all around the world.

 

This is a time for world leaders to be united to get the world back on its feet. If the politics of jealousy, envy, division and hate get in the way then we have no hope. Let's hope it's a new beginning, not the beginning of the end.

[cherdano]

The problem is - if enough of the normal life resumes to bring R back to, say, 1.5 then it will only be a matter of time unless the health system gets overwhelmed and we get new records of daily recorded deaths again, and there is no choice but to implement another lockdown. The main difference will be that a larger share of the public won't support the second lockdown.

 

I think the only viable strategy is

• continue the lockdown as long as is politically feasible, to bring the number of currently infectious people down to a low number, and then
  
• do EVERYTHING that helps bring down R in period after that:
  
  1. Test test test, espcially those who would come in contact with many people in their life: any form of carers (doctors, nursers, carehome workers, homecare workers), grocery workers, hair dressers once hair salons are set to reopen, bus drivers, police officers, ...
     
  2. do EVERY form of contact tracing - app-based (but PLEASE follow the apple/google model with minimal privacy invasions - more people signing up is more important than giving government more control, even if you don't care at all about the civil liberties implications; meanwhile, do ANYTHING that can entice people to sign up for them, e.g. by giving preferential access to testing), traditional test-and-contact-tracing
     
  3. require/strongly advise mask-wearing by the general public in any public setting
     
  4. offer publicly administered quarantine setting for anyone who thinks they are infectious and doesn't want to transmit it to the rest of their household
     

  [*]gradually reopen things as long as the data makes clear we keep R at or below 1.

 

E.g. say you think mask-wearing reduces the transmission probability only by 10%? Well, I think that's great news, it means just this comparatively unobtrusive measure brings us roughly 1/9th of the way from R = 2.6 to R = 1. Or, you think it won't help because the general public won't wear them properly? Ok, then let's spend BILLIONS on an education campaign on how to use them (helping newspapers stay afloat as a side effect can only be a good thing). A contact-tracing app for which only 40% sign up won't do much, as roughly only 0.4*0.4 = 16% of all transmissions will be caught (when both sides are using the app)? Well, 16% still helps!

 

Any 10% reduction of R is currently done via an enormous self-harm to the economy. Replacing that with an expensive and annoying public health intervention affecting everyone is a GREAT tradeoff.

[kenberg]

I wonder what people make of this article, I've not come across the source before this, but it adds a perspective I haven't seen so far:

 

https://thebulwark.c...Z8msT4Weg7jg0uQ

 

The article's point: The government might/will ease restrictions, but people will still be cautions. I have thought exactly that for some time.

 

 

Yesterday we had a Zoom session with grandkids in Oregon. Not long ago we planned to fly out there for a visit, that plan has been indefinitely postponed. And we will use our judgment on this long after government restrictions are softened.

 

My younger daughter owns and runs a boarding kennel for dogs (and the occasional cat etc). There are various reasons to board a dog, but often it is because the owner is travelling. I would love to think that her business will soon return to normal but realism suggests otherwise.

 

These are personal items, but I think that the effect of many such personal choices is what the article was getting at . Across the nation/world, individuals are going to be making choices and it will have a substantial long term economic effect. The government can tell us not to attend large gatherings and can pretty much enforce the rule. When the government ends the prohibition many people will still opt for caution.

 

This all seems obvious to me. Of course my choices, being 81, might well differ from the choices of someone who is 30. But there are a fair number of us oldies, and even youngies might be cautious.

[Cyberyeti]

Of course my choices, being 81, might well differ from the choices of someone who is 30. But there are a fair number of us oldies, and even youngies might be cautious.

 

I'm 55. The case that really concerns me is the one of the Romanian woman in Italy that's tested positive continuously for 8 weeks so far. I have colds that can last a year. My immune system has handled viruses strangely ever since I got virally induced ME. Being infectious and completely locked down for a long period is something I really don't want to contemplate.

[FelicityR]

I think the only viable strategy is...

 

...for this government to put some concrete proposals forward, as you have done cherdano. Well done. It's the procrastinating and keeping us all in the dark that is now making things worse. Even if they have to move the goalposts as things develop, it's better to have something on the table than nothing at all.

 

What could well happen is that the lockdown will be slowly eroded by civil disobedience if people cannot see a way forward. Giving the general public a specific road map will inspire confidence. Trotting out the same tired excuses and explanations is beginning to grate. Treating us all as if we are part of a 'Nanny State' is both insulting and unproductive. Most people will take responsibility for their actions: it's only the minority out there who are ruining it for the majority.

 

It's about time the Police and the Courts concentrated their efforts on fining heavily those idiots who disobey the covid-19 lockdown rules wholesale. Paltry fines and verbal warnings are just not effective. We all have enough time to take on board the restrictions that are in place. They are in place for a very good reason. Those that want to disobey them should be held to account.