Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

gardenmom5

wuhan - coronavirus

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/health/2020-05-19/coronavirus-doctor-ny-says-covid-like-multiple-diseases/12242026
 

covid 19 is like 3 different diseases.  The mild respiratory version, the severe disease with cytokine storm and blood clotting and most likely the Paediatric multisystem inflammatory syndrome.  
 

“Immune attack may explain both conditions

In this sense, paediatric multisystem inflammatory syndrome seems similar to severe COVID-19, in that it is the result of a disordered immune response, triggered by the virus.

Ugh, this virus just sucks. I am glad to see that they are learning more about how it is attacking people. Hopefully that leads to better treatments. 

The pediatric aspect is troubling (assuming it is Covid related) these kids barely showed symptoms so it isn't like a different treatment would help. 🙁 I feel slightly better reading that it sounds extremely rare. Still, very troubling tho.

From the link:

The condition is much rare than severe COVID, and it is thought that children who develop it may have unusual genetic vulnerabilities.

"Only a very small number of kids who get COVID exposure will get this," Dr Giwani says.

"We do not have a good handle on what the number is but it's pretty clear it is extremely rare."

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting article about problems with COVID data reporting in Georgia, including familiar issues like lag time and underresourced public health departments, along with such things as a bar graph where dates were not listed chronologically, but shuffled to show a downward trend in cases. 

“I have a hard time understanding how this happens without it being deliberate,” said State Rep. Jasmine Clark, D-Lilburn, who received her doctorate in microbiology and molecular genetics at Emory University. “Literally nowhere ever in any type of statistics would that be acceptable.”

https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/just-cuckoo-state-latest-data-mishap-causes-critics-cry-foul/182PpUvUX9XEF8vO11NVGO/

  • Like 1
  • Confused 3
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

“(CNN)The Navajo Nation has surpassed New York and New Jersey for the highest per-capita coronavirus infection rate in the US ...

The Navajo Nation, which spans parts of Arizona, New Mexico and Utah, reported a population of 173,667 on the 2010 census. As a result, with 4,002 cases, the Native American territory has 2,304.41 cases of Covid-19 per 100,000 people.

By contrast, New York state now has a rate of 1,806 cases per 100,000 ...”

Edited by Pen
  • Sad 14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TracyP said:

Ugh, this virus just sucks. I am glad to see that they are learning more about how it is attacking people. Hopefully that leads to better treatments. 

The pediatric aspect is troubling (assuming it is Covid related) these kids barely showed symptoms so it isn't like a different treatment would help. 🙁 I feel slightly better reading that it sounds extremely rare. Still, very troubling tho.

From the link:

The condition is much rare than severe COVID, and it is thought that children who develop it may have unusual genetic vulnerabilities.

"Only a very small number of kids who get COVID exposure will get this," Dr Giwani says.

"We do not have a good handle on what the number is but it's pretty clear it is extremely rare."

If it relates to a kind of autoimmune or immune system over reaction I wonder if it’s likely to affect the small percentage of kids who also get impacted negatively by vaccines or something.  I really hope they can figure out what’s going on and if it even is covid related (seems likely given the prevalence in covid areas but then maybe a bit of confirmation bias going on too)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TracyP said:

"Only a very small number of kids who get COVID exposure will get this," Dr Giwani says.

 

 

Slight correction, with due respect to the doctor: Only a very small percentage. The number will increase with cases, which will increase with exposure, so it is not going to remain small unless exposure is limited accordingly.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

If it relates to a kind of autoimmune or immune system over reaction I wonder if it’s likely to affect the small percentage of kids who also get impacted negatively by vaccines or something.  I really hope they can figure out what’s going on and if it even is covid related (seems likely given the prevalence in covid areas but then maybe a bit of confirmation bias going on too)

Oh, that would be terrible, if the same kids would be harmed whether they get the virus or a vaccine against it.

So far, doctors have not mentioned any correlation with previous vaccine reaction or autoimmune disorder (and there's no known association of the two).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two articles for you:

The USDA has an emergency food benefits program to help parents feed their kids who would normally have gotten breakfast and lunch at school--but only in 31 states. (To my dismay, Mississippi is not listed among them.)

Accusations that Florida, like Georgia, is messing with numbers to make reopening look better: https://www.floridatoday.com/story/news/2020/05/18/censorship-covid-19-data-researcher-removed-florida-moves-re-open-state/5212398002/

Edited by whitehawk
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my state, Oregon, the rate in American Indian / Native American groups isn’t horrible (~ 60 per 100,000 for local area tribes, higher, maybe double, if including Alaskan and Pacific Islanders) as in Navajo nation, but it is higher than the state average.  Part of that could be that over half the American Indian population of Oregon seems actually to be in the greater Portland area, which has the highest rates overall in state for all races. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CDC report released today on the outbreak at a church in Arkansas in March: 35 infected church members, who then spread it to 26 additional people in the community, with 4 deaths.

Among 92 attendees at a rural Arkansas church during March 6–11, 35 (38%) developed laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, and three persons died. Highest attack rates were in persons aged 19–64 years (59%) and ≥65 years (50%). An additional 26 cases linked to the church occurred in the community, including one death.

 

Edited by Corraleno
  • Sad 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.wehi.edu.au/news/covid19-prevention-trial-opens-high-risk-healthcare-workers
 

a study is starting in Australia testing whether hydroxychloroquine works preventatively for health care workers.  The study will run for four months and is called CovidShield.  It’s opt in based and half will be given a placebo.

“Professor Pellegrini said the hydroxychloroquine to be used in the study had been supplied by the manufacturer for that purpose and therefore would not impact patients who routinely required the drug for other conditions.

“COVID SHIELD will not be diverting hydroxychloroquine for routine use from pharmacies, hospitals, or other patient supply chains,” he said.”

Edited by Ausmumof3
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, whitehawk said:

Two articles for you:

The USDA has an emergency food benefits program to help parents feed their kids who would normally have gotten breakfast and lunch at school--but only in 31 states. (To my dismay, Mississippi is not listed among them.)

Accusations that Florida, like Georgia, is messing with numbers to make reopening look better: https://www.floridatoday.com/story/news/2020/05/18/censorship-covid-19-data-researcher-removed-florida-moves-re-open-state/5212398002/

Wow

I really want to hope those are just the words of a disgruntled employee but it’s hard to see that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Corraleno said:

CDC report released today on the outbreak at a church in Arkansas in March: 35 infected church members, who then spread it to 26 additional people in the community, with 4 deaths.

Among 92 attendees at a rural Arkansas church during March 6–11, 35 (38%) developed laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, and three persons died. Highest attack rates were in persons aged 19–64 years (59%) and ≥65 years (50%). An additional 26 cases linked to the church occurred in the community, including one death.

 

Why is the one “category” 19-64 years, though? That doesn’t make sense to me as a “category”. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Quill said:

Why is the one “category” 19-64 years, though? That doesn’t make sense to me as a “category”. 

I think that's a pretty common way to classify people. .  You have children (0 - 18), adults (19 - 64) and the elderly (65+). It's the way we're classified for things like Medicaid or Medicare, or for movie tickets, or for a lot of medical things where pediatrics or gerontology have separate norms.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, CuriousMomof3 said:

I think that's a pretty common way to classify people. .  You have children (0 - 18), adults (19 - 64) and the elderly (65+). It's the way we're classified for things like Medicaid or Medicare, or for movie tickets, or for a lot of medical things where pediatrics or gerontology have separate norms.

It's a very common way to classify people.  But in terms of this virus, and the risks, it's not really adequate to describe the situation.   The risk to a 20 yr old is extremely different to the risk for a 60 yr old.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/actueel/nieuws/2020/05/19/nieuwe-onderzoeksresultaten-covid-19-bij-nertsenbedrijven
 

I can’t read the language but supposedly this is a case of animal to human transmission in the mink farm 

 

That’s what Google Translate seems to indicate. 

😟

I guess we will probably hear more soon.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-20/coronavirus-mirabai-covid19-three-positive-tests-fatigue/12260660
 

one Australian woman who tested negative began feeling ill and tested positive again has just returned a third positive test.  She’s been sick for over two months.

apparently In Aus 95 pc of people have recovered within 60 so it’s not clear what’s happening to make this go on for longer for some people.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, happysmileylady said:

It's a very common way to classify people.  But in terms of this virus, and the risks, it's not really adequate to describe the situation.   The risk to a 20 yr old is extremely different to the risk for a 60 yr old.  

I think that's true for the risk of getting severe disease from it, but not for the risk of catching it or transmitting it?  

I have heard a number of comments from people that sound like they believe that people who are "high risk" due to age or symptoms are more of a risk to them.  Like "I'm staying away from the elderly because I don't want to catch this virus".  I don't think that's actually true. I think that other than children, we all have an equal chance of getting it and being contagious.

Of course, if someone is a HCW, then the high risk people do present more of a risk since they're more likely to be too sick to quarantine and thus end up exposing HCW's.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been thinking about various issues with public transport and crowding and social distancing and I’m wondering if a long term solution to this is to move toward more of a two shift scenario.  So for an eight hour day we could have a 6am to 2pm cohort and a 2pm till 10pm cohort.  Even schools could potentially run morning and afternoon shifts although maybe with later start and earlier finish times.  It would also mean peoples free time is distributed more evenly meaning it may work better for cafes shops and even gyms to run with lower staff levels and smaller numbers of customers at one time.

is that kind of thinking realistic?  Or is it really too pie in the sky to think it could work?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not two shifts, where they're passing in the middle, but in our area, where there's one major employer, there are lots of shifts.  So, this agency works 6 to 2, and this one works 7 to 3.  

We still have really crowded transportation though.

I think that part of the solution is that everyone who can work from home does so indefinitely.  My brother sells some kind of technical widget, and he says that he used to drive all over to see all his clients.  Now his clients expect to see him on Zoom, and he can see many more clients in a day, so he's getting more work done.  I don't see why he can't continue to sell on Zoom after.  

Similarly, I sat in a friend's kid's IEP meeting on Google Meet the other day as moral support.  You know what?  It worked great!    Better than before, because parents needed to take an hour off work instead of an hour plus transportation, and no one was late because of traffic, and we could all see each other Brady Bunch style as opposed to looking at the side of 1/2 the people's heads.  I think IEPs should stay that way unless a parent wants something different.  It's fewer people coming into the building, and sharing outside germs.  

In my area, my guess is 1/2 the people seem to be doing their job fine from home, other than the fact that their kids are underfoot.  So, let them continue.  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I have been thinking about various issues with public transport and crowding and social distancing and I’m wondering if a long term solution to this is to move toward more of a two shift scenario.  So for an eight hour day we could have a 6am to 2pm cohort and a 2pm till 10pm cohort.  Even schools could potentially run morning and afternoon shifts although maybe with later start and earlier finish times.  It would also mean peoples free time is distributed more evenly meaning it may work better for cafes shops and even gyms to run with lower staff levels and smaller numbers of customers at one time.

is that kind of thinking realistic?  Or is it really too pie in the sky to think it could work?

 

It probably depends on the industry.  A lot of tech jobs are already shift work.  But, a lot of tech jobs can also work remotely. 

My junior high had split school shifts due to overcrowding. It sucked. It's a really, really long day for teachers and a really, really short day for the students.  Our class sessions were 37.5 minutes long, (Yes, they counted that half minute), in order to accommodate both shifts of kids AND keep the teachers from working 14+ hour days. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MissLemon said:

 

It probably depends on the industry.  A lot of tech jobs are already shift work.  But, a lot of tech jobs can also work remotely. 

My junior high had split school shifts due to overcrowding. It sucked. It's a really, really long day for teachers and a really, really short day for the students.  Our class sessions were 37.5 minutes long, (Yes, they counted that half minute), in order to accommodate both shifts of kids AND keep the teachers from working 14+ hour days. 

Yeah I can see how that would be exhausting.  I was thinking of two shifts of teachers but of course you can’t just double your workforce overnight so most likely not feasible.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Small, preliminary but reassuring study about the spread of the virus (or lack thereof) via surfaces.

(I will x-post to the scientific research thread and will update whenever the second set of results is released.)

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, JennyD said:

Small, preliminary but reassuring study about the spread of the virus (or lack thereof) via surfaces.

(I will x-post to the scientific research thread and will update whenever the second set of results is released.)

Reassuring 

I think this kind of sits with what we’re seeing where spread happens either with close contacts or crowded indoor areas rather than potentially high traffic and high touch areas like supermarkets etc.  

im not sure how that compares to other viruses 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JennyD said:

Small, preliminary but reassuring study about the spread of the virus (or lack thereof) via surfaces.

(I will x-post to the scientific research thread and will update whenever the second set of results is released.)

A study out of Germany showed the same thing. This is reassuring. I have heard a couple infectious disease experts saying the same thing all along. This is a respiratory illness, so we'd expect it to spread like every other respiratory illness - spread by droplets and aerosol making distancing, masking, and hand washing important (in that order). Washing down of surfaces, not so much.

I think this is actually very important as we go forward. It means, for example, that perhaps Walmart should open back up to 24 hrs. Instead of the intensive cleaning protocol, encourage shoppers to use quiet hours to spread the shoppers out more. Churches have to face the fact that it doesn't matter how well you clean between services. Putting that many people in one building is incredibly high risk, no amount of hand sanitizer will change that.

  • Like 22

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TracyP said:

A study out of Germany showed the same thing. This is reassuring. I have heard a couple infectious disease experts saying the same thing all along. This is a respiratory illness, so we'd expect it to spread like every other respiratory illness - spread by droplets and aerosol making distancing, masking, and hand washing important (in that order). Washing down of surfaces, not so much.

I think this is actually very important as we go forward. It means, for example, that perhaps Walmart should open back up to 24 hrs. Instead of the intensive cleaning protocol, encourage shoppers to use quiet hours to spread the shoppers out more. Churches have to face the fact that it doesn't matter how well you clean between services. Putting that many people in one building is incredibly high risk, no amount of hand sanitizer will change that.

This will be important for opening schools, too. If the research conclusively shows that surfaces are not a concern, the custodial staff won't have to spend a bunch of time needlessly disinfecting every surface. They could focus on high-touch areas like stairwell hand rails, doorknobs, etc rather than worrying about every single surface.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/why-do-some-covid-19-patients-infect-many-others-whereas-most-don-t-spread-virus-all#
 

Good article on the role of superspreaders and what this means for virus spread.  I think it’s also a good argument possibly for why contact tracing seems to be so effective at reducing transmission 

Edited by Ausmumof3
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, CuriousMomof3 said:

I think that's true for the risk of getting severe disease from it, but not for the risk of catching it or transmitting it?  

I have heard a number of comments from people that sound like they believe that people who are "high risk" due to age or symptoms are more of a risk to them.  Like "I'm staying away from the elderly because I don't want to catch this virus".  I don't think that's actually true. I think that other than children, we all have an equal chance of getting it and being contagious.

Of course, if someone is a HCW, then the high risk people do present more of a risk since they're more likely to be too sick to quarantine and thus end up exposing HCW's.  

Well, I had assumed that "highest attack rate" meant more severe disease.

 

Also though, because people who are younger are less likely to have severe disease, I would think that would mean they would be more likely to not end up being tested, since they would be less likely to meet testing criteria.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Well, I had assumed that "highest attack rate" meant more severe disease.

 

Also though, because people who are younger are less likely to have severe disease, I would think that would mean they would be more likely to not end up being tested, since they would be less likely to meet testing criteria.  

The majority of positive cases here are those under 60. Those 60+ are only 30% of positive. The over 60 group is the majority of deaths but those younger have been sick enough here to be tested for sure.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Well, I had assumed that "highest attack rate" meant more severe disease.

 

Also though, because people who are younger are less likely to have severe disease, I would think that would mean they would be more likely to not end up being tested, since they would be less likely to meet testing criteria.  


The link to the article above didn't work for me, so I can't find info with those specific numbers, but they did contact tracing for the church and tested 92/94 people who were there.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Corraleno said:

CDC report released today on the outbreak at a church in Arkansas in March: 35 infected church members, who then spread it to 26 additional people in the community, with 4 deaths.

Among 92 attendees at a rural Arkansas church during March 6–11, 35 (38%) developed laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, and three persons died. Highest attack rates were in persons aged 19–64 years (59%) and ≥65 years (50%). An additional 26 cases linked to the church occurred in the community, including one death.

 

Try this link: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6920e2.htm

43 minutes ago, CuriousMomof3 said:

The link to the article above didn't work for me, so I can't find info with those specific numbers, but they did contact tracing for the church and tested 92/94 people who were there.  

I understand "attack rate" means percentage of that age group that was infected. I could be wrong.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RootAnn said:

Try this link: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6920e2.htm

I understand "attack rate" means percentage of that age group that was infected. I could be wrong.

Thank you for the link!

That's how I'm reading it too.  If it was severe disease that 59% would be horrifying. 

If we're right and that's the rate for positive tests, it's good to see that the rate among children was really low (6.3%). This seems to support the idea the kids actually get it less frequently, as opposed to just not showing symptoms, which would be good news as far as the safety of reopening schools.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like asymptomatic people were not tested in the Arkansas Church case, so it is possible the younger cohort had a higher level of infection but that it was not captured by this report because they only tested those who were symptomatic. I consider that a big limitation to the learnings here.

Quote

 Consistent with CDC recommendations for laboratory test-ing at that time (3), clinical criteria for testing included cough, fever, or shortness of breath; asymptomatic persons were not routinely tested.

Overall, 94 persons attended church A events during March 6–11 and might have been exposed to the index patients or to another infectious patient at the same event; among these persons, 92 were successfully contacted and are included in the analysis. Similar proportions of church A attendees were aged ≤18 years (35%), 19–64 years (35%), and ≥65 years (30%) (Table 1). However, a higher proportion of adults aged 19–64 years and ≥65 years were tested (72% and 50%, respectively), and received positive test results (59% and 50%), than did younger persons. Forty-five persons were tested for SARS-CoV-2, among whom 35 (77.8%) received positive test 
results (Table 2).

Edited by RootAnn
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, CuriousMomof3 said:

 If we're right and that's the rate for positive tests, it's good to see that the rate among children was really low (6.3%). This seems to support the idea the kids actually get it less frequently, as opposed to just not showing symptoms, which would be good news as far as the safety of reopening schools.  

Unfortunately, I think we can't assume this since they only tested the people with standard symptoms at the time. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RootAnn said:

It looks like asymptomatic people were not tested in the Arkansas Church case, so it is possible the younger cohort had a higher level of infection but that it was not captured by this report because they only tested those who were symptomatic. I consider that a big limitation to the learnings here.

 

 

Darn, so my optimistic reading wasn't right.  

Now, I'm confused as to whether 50% of the 50% of older adults who were tested got it (so 25%), or 50% of older adults, meaning everyone who was tested had it.  I think it has to be the latter, because of the math.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully the chart comes through. Yes, I think everyone they tested of that group had it. The chart is easier to interpret.

Screenshot_20200520-123210.png

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you seen the figures for the Swedish antibody results? I haven't seen the report but saw on a post that unfortunately only 7.3% in Stockholm had antibodies rather than the 25% hoped for.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TCB said:

Have you seen the figures for the Swedish antibody results? I haven't seen the report but saw on a post that unfortunately only 7.3% in Stockholm had antibodies rather than the 25% hoped for.

 

Well, shoot. 

I wonder how reliable their antibody tests are. I hear that there's an antibody test from the UK that is quite good, but many others aren't at all reliable.

We have three family members on lists for antibody testing, which is not available in our area. Last word was practitioners have kits but they're waiting for guidance from the FDA.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

 

Yikes.

 

 

 

‘If the toll keeps rising, he said, he won't be able to handle them all because the city does not have enough facilities to cremate the bodies of the victims, he said.

"Unfortunately, there are not enough ovens," Ascencio said’

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/19/2020 at 8:36 PM, Ausmumof3 said:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-20/coronavirus-mirabai-covid19-three-positive-tests-fatigue/12260660
 

one Australian woman who tested negative began feeling ill and tested positive again has just returned a third positive test.  She’s been sick for over two months.

apparently In Aus 95 pc of people have recovered within 60 so it’s not clear what’s happening to make this go on for longer for some people.

 

This is a similar example of someone who has been sick now for 72 days.  Age 37, no underlying conditions. 

https://www.kgw.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/this-is-such-an-isolating-virus-oregon-woman-battling-covid-19-for-months/283-0e02fb6b-60b6-4ee4-8005-d6c00c43bcb8

(I don’t know how she got it, but I think she is located in same area as a Diamond Princess couple who were on the news.  ) 

  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

This is a similar example of someone who has been sick now for 72 days.  Age 37, no underlying conditions. 

https://www.kgw.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/this-is-such-an-isolating-virus-oregon-woman-battling-covid-19-for-months/283-0e02fb6b-60b6-4ee4-8005-d6c00c43bcb8

(I don’t know how she got it, but I think she is located in same area as a Diamond Princess couple who were on the news.  ) 

Yes the thought of having to be completely isolated for that long was kind of freaking me out.  I mean we are social distancing etc but being that sick alone for that long and not knowing if it will end is scary.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://m.timesofindia.com/world/china/covid-19-chinas-new-outbreak-shows-signs-the-coronavirus-could-be-changing/amp_articleshow/75845298.cms?__twitter_impression=true
 

not sure if source reliability but has anyone else seen anything related?

“BEIJING: Chinese doctors are seeing the coronavirus manifest differently among patients in its new cluster of cases in the northeast region compared to the original outbreak in Wuhan, suggesting that the pathogen may be changing in unknown ways and complicating efforts to stamp it out.

 

Patients found in the northern provinces of Jilin and Heilongjiang appear to carry the virus for a longer period of time and take longer to recover, as defined by a negative nucleic acid test, Qiu Haibo, one of China’s top critical care doctors, told state television on Tuesday.

Edited by Ausmumof3
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...