wuhan - coronavirus

[TCB]

53 minutes ago, square_25 said:. 

 

Ooof. I haven't heard about this. Does it actually seem to help survival rates? 

It seems that it is helping survival rates. We haven’t really had high enough numbers of patients to really observe that personally but there is a definite switch to avoiding ventilation now, and that is because it has been shown to improve outcomes. 

[TCB]

14 minutes ago, square_25 said:

Yeah, I heard about people moving away from ventilation, just not about the negative consequences. It makes sense, I guess. 

It’s great that people are surviving of course. It’s just also really uncomfortable for them to be stuck in an isolation room, not seeing any family etc. and to be having to endure the things they have to endure. I try and spend as long as possible in the rooms with them but that’s still not a lot of human contact. Add to that not being able to sleep well at all because you’re working at coughing and breathing and it’s a hard experience to go through. People are mostly very stoical about it though! I’ve been impressed!

[TracyP]

2 hours ago, square_25 said:

But people are reporting post-viral syndromes, which is not the same as long recovery from pneumonia. A lot of those people didn’t have serious pneumonia.

True but not my point. Many people are reacting with surprise that someone hospitalized with pneumonia could take months to recover.

2 hours ago, square_25 said:

What I’d like to know is how frequent these are. The problem, for me, is that we personally know people like this, which makes it seem less rare.

Yeah, and my personal experience is the opposite. I definitely look forward to more data on how often this occurs.

2 hours ago, EmilyGF said:

I'd suggest listening to actual scientists talk about this. I like the podcast This Week in Virology.

Ooh, love them! I recommended that podcast earlier in this thread.

2 hours ago, EmilyGF said:

On one hand, some things are overblown by the media (especially scientific articles that haven't yet been refereed). On the other hand, this is a really potent virus with a lot of unknowns and longer term effects. For example, a doctor was talking about how hair loss is being noticed long term in women who recover from COVID. He quipped, "Mask now or wig later." When I listen to scientists talk about it, they include uncertainties, which media doesn't do.

Emily

I am having a hard time telling how to read this post. I feel like you are lecturing me to not make light of covid. Trust me, I would not be one to do that. I just don't want to see it overblown either. I'm so sick of having to defend myself every time I point out that the media is making this virus look worse than it is.

Not your fault (how could you know?) but you struck a nerve, so I'm feeling a bit raw at the moment. My dd went bald at 14yo due to alopecia. A virus could very well have been the trigger for her autoimmune condition. That is a well established fact. We probably actually agree. Listen to scientists, not media. That's good advice.

[vonfirmath]

55 minutes ago, TracyP said:

True but not my point. Many people are reacting with surprise that someone hospitalized with pneumonia could take months to recover.

Yeah, and my personal experience is the opposite. I definitely look forward to more data on how often this occurs.

Ooh, love them! I recommended that podcast earlier in this thread.

I am having a hard time telling how to read this post. I feel like you are lecturing me to not make light of covid. Trust me, I would not be one to do that. I just don't want to see it overblown either. I'm so sick of having to defend myself every time I point out that the media is making this virus look worse than it is.

Not your fault (how could you know?) but you struck a nerve, so I'm feeling a bit raw at the moment. My dd went bald at 14yo due to alopecia. A virus could very well have been the trigger for her autoimmune condition. That is a well established fact. We probably actually agree. Listen to scientists, not media. That's good advice.

I've got a friend who ended up with a heart transplant after a virus weakened his heart. It's just one of those things you don't think about normally.

 

ETA: And now he's immunocompromised; I had no idea that, even after transplant, people have to be SO careful. They are going to homeschool their kids.

 

Edited August 12, 2020 by vonfirmath

[Pen]

6 hours ago, Laura Corin said:

Interesting BBC programme I saw last night; I don't know how viewable it is elsewhere.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000ljnb/surviving-the-virus-my-brother-me?xtor=CS8-1000-[Discovery_Cards]-[Multi_Site]-[SL02]-[PS_IPLAYER~N~~P_SurvivingtheVirus]

Identical twin doctors - Chris who is a researcher/TV presenter and went back to front-line work for Covid; Xand who works in disaster zones/TV presenting but wanted to help in care homes in the UK.  But the programme did not go as I suspect it was designed to go.  Xand had Covid early in the pandemic - badly but not hospitalised - then started to have heart arrhythmias, admitted to A&E (ER) to have his heart restarted, but had continuing problems thereafter.  The programme ended up being more about a forties-year-old highly-trained professional who could no longer trust himself in the kind of high-responsibility environments for which he was trained.  On the way through, there was filming in a rehabilitation unit that was full of people - including younger people - rehabilitating from Covid-induced strokes. 

I came away with a stronger understanding of how little is actually known still about how the virus affects the body as a whole.

 

Thank you for telling about that.  For people who can’t see it on bbc I player I found what I think is same thing here:

 

 

[kokotg]

re: flu v covid in kids....there's a new report from the AAP that says the mortality rate for kids who get covid is 7.5 times higher than flu....it's just that not as many kids have had covid (yet). Amber Schmidtke is a great source for looking at data in Georgia specifically, but here she summarizes these nationwide findings:

Quote

Another important finding is the mortality data for children. There have been 86 pediatric deaths as of July 30th and 338,982 pediatric infections. Therefore, the child mortality rate is 0.03%. It is a relief to see such a tiny percentage, for sure. To compare that to influenza (see table below), in the 2018 - 2019 season there were and estimated 477 pediatric deaths out of 11,296,414 illnesses. That would mean a mortality rate of 0.004%. Compared to seasonal influenza, the COVID-19 mortality rate among children is 7.5 times higher. So it is incorrect to say that COVID-19 kills fewer children than influenza - it just hasn’t had the chance to spread to kids at the same rate as influenza due to existing public health recommendations, thankfully.

 

Here's a link to the whole report, with references: https://amberschmidtkephd.substack.com/p/the-daily-digest-10aug2020

I thought this was interesting/scary because I hear so many people say the flu is more deadly for kids, and I always just sort of assumed this was true and that the real things to worry about were long term effects that we don't yet know about and, especially, kids passing covid on to household members and other higher risk people. Obviously, the overall risk to kids is still small, but it appears that it's considerably more dangerous to them than flu is. 

[Pen]

2 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

That would seem to presume that 338,982 represents the actual total number of kids infected with covid.  And giving the testing situations and the fact that it's so much more mild in kids, I think it's pretty safe to say that there have been a whole lot more than 338,982 kids infected.  We have absolutely no idea how many kids get it, or had it, and were never tested.  We only know how many cases were confirmed.  

 

That is also true for flu. We only know how many cases for people who had flu confirmed. 

[kokotg]

9 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

That would seem to presume that 338,982 represents the actual total number of kids infected with covid.  And giving the testing situations and the fact that it's so much more mild in kids, I think it's pretty safe to say that there have been a whole lot more than 338,982 kids infected.  We have absolutely no idea how many kids get it, or had it, and were never tested.  We only know how many cases were confirmed.  

It would also be true that most kids with a mild case of the flu are never tested, too, though, wouldn't it? It does seem to be using an estimated total number of flu cases and confirmed cases of covid (I don't know how they're estimating the flu cases). At any rate, I do think we should be careful about saying "flu is more dangerous" when there doesn't seem to be any actual data to back that up. Like I said, I found it interesting because I've taken it on faith that flu was more dangerous to kids; I won't do that anymore. And just looking at raw numbers....86 pediatric deaths when kids haven't been in school doesn't tell us a lot about what things would look like if we hadn't protected kids (and we're starting an experiment in not protecting them in a lot of places right now).

Edited August 12, 2020 by kokotg

[Jean in Newcastle]

Just because other viruses cause certain symptoms common to COVID19 doesn't mean that those symptoms aren't important to know to look for.  So of course, the media is going to report on new unknown symptoms - not just for ratings but because people really do need to see the whole range of symptoms during a pandemic. 

I don't know of a single reliable news source that doesn't report the overall stats when presenting information on COVID19.  Many people might gloss right over them but they are there.  It's not like we have had to do a deep dive in order to report these figures. 

It's actually not the news media's fault that health education in this country is so poor.  It has not been hidden information that the flu can cause significant long term damage in some cases.  There actually is a reason why local health departments push flu shots.  But I think that people are finally paying attention to information that has always been out there because now it's "everywhere" due to pandemic coverage.  And still people are minimizing or disbelieving the data and are blaming the media for the correct information that they put out because somehow they've lost the ability (or perhaps never had the ability) to use critical thinking skills to process information. 

 

[Pen]

13 minutes ago, kokotg said:

It would also be true that most kids with a mild case of the flu are never tested, too, though, wouldn't it? It does seem to be using an estimated total number of flu cases and confirmed cases of covid (I don't know how they're estimating the flu cases). At any rate, I do think we should be careful about saying "flu is more dangerous" when there doesn't seem to be any actual data to back that up. Like I said, I found it interesting because I've taken it on faith that flu was more dangerous to kids; I won't do that anymore. And just looking at raw numbers....86 pediatric deaths when kids haven't been in school doesn't tell us a lot about what things would look like if we hadn't protected kids (and we're starting an experiment in not protecting them in a lot of places right now).

 

Did that include NY State other than NYC?

if yes, it said stats for 49 states iirc, what state was not included? 

Also was it including Navajo lands?

Edited August 12, 2020 by Pen

[kokotg]

8 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Right, lots of kids aren't tested for the flu.  But because we know so much more about the flu than covid, the estimates can be more accurate.  Not perfect of course, but certainly a well researched estimate.  It's not possible to create a well researched estimate with a disease that is less than 1 yr old.  

I am not saying "flu is more dangerous."  I simply find the fact that flu kills some 200+ kids each year, and causes thousands of hospitalizations to be an important factor to keep in mind.  

certainly. It will be a miracle if we don't hit 200 pediatric deaths with covid if we open all the schools up while it's still spreading widely. But I definitely think (and I've said before) that if this causes us to start taking potentially dangerous viruses more seriously overall, it will be a great thing. Increase access to sick leave, better health care, stop acting like it's somehow brave and noble to go to work/school sick. ETA: My husband is a high school teacher, and I remember his department head scolding him after he took a sick day because he had strep throat and was still actively contagious--she proudly boasted that she hadn't taken a sick day in 30 years and listed off all the contagious illnesses she'd just worked right through! 

Edited August 12, 2020 by kokotg

[kokotg]

1 minute ago, happysmileylady said:

The CDC estimates flu deaths according to flu season, I am not sure if they have a table of them that goes strictly by the year.  

 

I have no doubt that this will result in some changes.  I don't know how many though.  One thing about attendance policies....especially in schools.....they are in place because kids skip school.   For years, schools, particularly ones in low performing districts, have been pushing "make sure you kids show up to school every day!"  And it's not because they have lots of sick kids, it's because lots of kids just don't show up.  It's going to be a very fine line I think between making sure that sick kids stay home.......but that well kids go to school.  

I think making sure parents have enough paid sick leave to stay home with sick kids would go farther than anything else toward keeping sick kids home where they belong (which would, ironically, reduce absenteeism overall since the kids wouldn't pass things along to their classmates as readily). 

[Jean in Newcastle]

8 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

The CDC estimates flu deaths according to flu season, I am not sure if they have a table of them that goes strictly by the year.  

 

I have no doubt that this will result in some changes.  I don't know how many though.  One thing about attendance policies....especially in schools.....they are in place because kids skip school.   For years, schools, particularly ones in low performing districts, have been pushing "make sure you kids show up to school every day!"  And it's not because they have lots of sick kids, it's because lots of kids just don't show up.  It's going to be a very fine line I think between making sure that sick kids stay home.......but that well kids go to school.  

If COVID19 had petered out with the change of seasons then they would have report COVID deaths by season too.  But that hasn't been the case with COVID. 

[Pen]

34 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

No, the quote you listed actually specifically says "estimated."  Which the CDC does with the flu every year, it estimates total number of overall cases.  One of the reasons they do that is for planning and public health purposes.  

 

Ah thanks.  I reread and saw quote “estimate” more clearly.  Then I think for myself I need to take it as a “we don’t know yet” situation. 

 

[Pen]

“Our analyses suggest children younger than 5 years with mild to moderate COVID-19 have high amounts of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA in their nasopharynx compared with older children and adults. Our study is limited to detection of viral nucleic acid, rather than infectious virus, although SARS-CoV-2 pediatric studies reported a correlation between higher nucleic acid levels and the ability to culture infectious virus.⁵ Thus, young children can potentially be important drivers of SARS-CoV-2 spread in the general population, as has been demonstrated with respiratory syncytial virus, where children with high viral loads are more likely to transmit.⁶ Behavioral habits of young children and close quarters in school and day care settings raise concern for SARS-CoV-2 amplification in this population as public health restrictions are eased. In addition to public health implications, this population will be important for targeting immunization efforts as SARS-CoV-2 vaccines become available.”

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2768952

(apologies if this was already posted)

Edited August 12, 2020 by Pen

[Meriwether]

21 hours ago, square_25 said:

I'm not really reading anecdotes of worst-case scenarios with COVID, but I actually don't know anyone IRL who had a post-viral syndrome after the flu, while a lot of the people we know who had COVID report lingering issues. So I'm currently cautiously assuming that it's more prevalent with COVID than it is with other things. 

Do you have data on inflammatory syndromes in kids after the flu? I never paid any attention in this, so I don't know the rate of this complication. 

I was really sick with something 5 years ago. About 2 weeks after I stopped coughing all the time (I had been sick for 6 weeks or so), I  developed paresthesia. I had a whole host of symptoms. I do not know if the virus caused my problems, but it is a possibility. Most of the problems mostly resolved after 18 months. I have flairs, especially when stressed, and may have had an episode this past winter. It is hard to say, because it causes real symptoms and can affect any system but there isn't any real) problem with the system. So, I saw 4 doctors for an issue this winter and none of them could find anything wrong - evidence of inflammation, yes, cause, no.

My dad, who is actively farming and doing construction now at 71, spent a year in an easy chair in his early 60's. Some virus knocked him down hard. It took a long time for him to overcome the fatigue and heart issues.

A woman in her 50's from my hometown picked up a weird virus about a decade ago. She had severe neurological problems afterward and died without fully recovering a couple years later.

[Ausmumof3]

10 hours ago, square_25 said:

But people are reporting post-viral syndromes, which is not the same as long recovery from pneumonia. A lot of those people didn’t have serious pneumonia.

What I’d like to know is how frequent these are. The problem, for me, is that we personally know people like this, which makes it seem less rare.

Really a follow up study should have been set up similar to the ones in Italy where people get a call at 4 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months to see how many people are still having symptoms and to what degree.  I’m not sure if that’s being done.

[Jean in Newcastle]

3 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Really a follow up study should have been set up similar to the ones in Italy where people get a call at 4 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months to see how many people are still having symptoms and to what degree.  I’m not sure if that’s being done.

https://www.vox.com/2020/4/29/21240085/coronavirus-russia-putin-cases-deaths

Don't know if this ongoing app/ study does that? 

[Ausmumof3]

According to BNO UK just changed their COVID death definition to exclude anyone who died more than 28 days after testing positive which wiped more than 5,000 deaths of their official toll.  This seems kind of disingenuous.  Maybe some were being counted as covid deaths that really weren’t but many many people take more than four weeks to die from it.

[Ausmumof3]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12384050/uk-coronavirus-death-toll-revised-down/
 

this is obviously not the most reliable news source but it’s all I can find so far.  

[Ausmumof3]

4 minutes ago, square_25 said:

That... seems like monkeying with the numbers. 

It seems a bit suspicious when uk officially just went into recession doesn’t it?  I can see why you wouldn’t want to count someone who was hit by a bus six weeks after covid but from what we’ve seen here people are often in the ICU for six to eight weeks and sometimes relapse and end up back in hospital after several weeks so excluding all deaths more than four weeks in is almost certainly going to exclude some genuine COVID deaths as well.

[Pen]

14 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

According to BNO UK just changed their COVID death definition to exclude anyone who died more than 28 days after testing positive which wiped more than 5,000 deaths of their official toll.  This seems kind of disingenuous.  Maybe some were being counted as covid deaths that really weren’t but many many people take more than four weeks to die from it.

 

Quite a lot of people take longer than 4 weeks.

 

[Pen]

@ElizabethB  I don’t think it would convince anyone that HCQ is helpful—or not. But Costa Rica is another interesting country to look at.

Stopped after the fraudulent  publication in Lancet and have since restarted.

They themselves are clear that they don’t know whether or not it helps, but they are making it a readily available option. 

 

“The country has provided the drug to coronavirus patients since conferencing with Chinese experts in April, according to Mario Ruíz, Medical Manager of the CCSS.

Costa Rica has a low case fatality rate (.75%), and fewer than 5% of known active coronavirus cases are currently hospitalized.

“We can’t say that’s a result of this medication, but we can’t discard it either,” Macaya said last month. The CCSS has not released data comparing the outcomes of patients treated with hydroxychloroquine to other methods.”

 

[Ausmumof3]

1 minute ago, Pen said:

@ElizabethB  I don’t think it would convince anyone that HCQ is helpful—or not. But Costa Rica is another interesting country to look at.

Stopped after the fraudulent  publication in Lancet and have since restarted.

They themselves are clear that they don’t know whether or not it helps, but they are making it a readily available option. 

 

“The country has provided the drug to coronavirus patients since conferencing with Chinese experts in April, according to Mario Ruíz, Medical Manager of the CCSS.

Costa Rica has a low case fatality rate (.75%), and fewer than 5% of known active coronavirus cases are currently hospitalized.

“We can’t say that’s a result of this medication, but we can’t discard it either,” Macaya said last month. The CCSS has not released data comparing the outcomes of patients treated with hydroxychloroquine to other methods.”

 

India’s death rates still seem lower compared to cases as well.

I wonder how Costa Rica’s testing is?  If they are catching most cases .75 pc is not particularly low (IFR estimate is .69 and Australia’s is around that).  But if they have significantly more cases than they’re picking up it might be.

[kbutton]

7 hours ago, kokotg said:

re: flu v covid in kids....there's a new report from the AAP that says the mortality rate for kids who get covid is 7.5 times higher than flu....it's just that not as many kids have had covid (yet). 

Our state press conference yesterday (Ohio) had experts from three large children's hospitals in the state. One of the experts noted that about 8% of kids who get COVID need hospitalization (not all in the ICU). 

[Pen]

16 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

India’s death rates still seem lower compared to cases as well.

 

Yes. They do.

 

Quote

I wonder how Costa Rica’s testing is?  If they are catching most cases .75 pc is not particularly low (IFR estimate is .69 and Australia’s is around that).  But if they have significantly more cases than they’re picking up it might be.

 

I don’t have any testing information.

Here is worldometer chart showing Costa Rica and Australia if it comes through properly

 

If HCQ had been helping, I hope getting back on will help them again as they had been doing wonderfully and then went into a steep increase — whether caused by HCQ withdrawal or not

 

Edited August 13, 2020 by Pen

[TCB]

1 hour ago, Ausmumof3 said:

According to BNO UK just changed their COVID death definition to exclude anyone who died more than 28 days after testing positive which wiped more than 5,000 deaths of their official toll.  This seems kind of disingenuous.  Maybe some were being counted as covid deaths that really weren’t but many many people take more than four weeks to die from it.

I can't find the report right now, but I think it was maybe England who changed their numbers, not the whole UK, and they said they did it so that the whole of the UK was doing the same thing, so that numbers could be compared like with like. I'm not 100% sure about that because I can't see the article I read earlier.

[Pen]

 

 

Nm

Edited August 13, 2020 by Pen
0 left out

[Ausmumof3]

278 cases for Vic

8 deaths today

https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2020-08-13/alpacas-help-researchers-in-hunt-for-coronavirus-cure/12550702
 

here’s an interesting thing on research with alpacas.  We’ve talked about it here before but I didn’t realise it was being studied in Aus.

[Pen]

14 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

 

Oops, no, it's .87% here. I better go fix that.

 

I’d already messed up anyway as I saw it as if it were a .08  I am sure it can’t be 80%!   (But .87% hospitalizations  is lower than figures I have seen.) 

 

An article I saw had:

“The CDC cautions that most reports of coronavirus cases among children are incomplete, which adds uncertainty to the report's specific numbers.

Relatively few children with COVID-19 ended up in the hospital, and fewer still required intensive care. But hospitalization status was known in only 29% of cases involving children. 

Based on the partial data analyzed in this study, between 5.7% and 20% of sick children end up in the hospital, and 2% or fewer end up in intensive care, the paper says. For adults ages 18-64, the proportion hospitalized was between 10% and 33%, and 1.4% to 4.5% required intensive care. “

Edited August 13, 2020 by Pen

[Ausmumof3]

32 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

Yes. They do.

 

 

I don’t have any testing information.

Here is worldometer chart showing Costa Rica and Australia if it comes through properly

 

If HCQ had been helping, I hope getting back on will help them again as they had been doing wonderfully and then went into a steep increase — whether caused by HCQ withdrawal or not

 

Looks like our cfr is higher and has gone up some since I last calculated (not surprising with the aged care outbreak).

i did check median age and it looks like we have median age of 37 and Costa Rica is 31.7 (from 2018).  Percentage of population over 65 for Aus is 16 versus 10 for Costa Rica.  
 

I guess this is why I really would like to see good trials that correct for all the stuff.  I’m not anti HCQ and I might consider it for myself given no heart issues etc but would probably discourage people in my life with previous heart problems from taking it.  

 

[Ausmumof3]

23 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

I saw a similar article earlier as well.

The reason the article described for the change in numbers is that they were actually counting people who didn't have Covid on their death certificate.  They were counting people based on having had a covid diagnosis in the past, and not based on what was on their death certificates.  It was almost like those conspiracy theories that talk about people who die in, for example, a car accident, but were then found to be covid positive being counted as covid deaths.

But, I can't find the article now either, it was a couple of hours ago that I saw it.  Maybe some news person published an article without checking for conspiracy theory sources. 🤷‍♀️

 

Ok, I did find something

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-britain-casualties/uk-to-review-potentially-faulty-england-covid-19-death-data-idUSKCN24I1A0

 

 

It makes sense to change it but not to rule out all deaths with covid test over 28 days surely given how many people are sick for longer than that?

[Pen]

 

Overview

 

[Eos]

Ugh, my daughter in Switzerland reports that they've gone from about 7 cases (early June or so, after the first big wave and shutdown) then slowly up and up to 274 today following the reopening of almost everything.  On the plus side, Geneva has mandated masks for University students in the fall.  I sent her some pretty masks early in the summer and she's been slowly relearning how to be outside.  She puts me on facetime and "we" walk around the old town or to a shop.  Very few people are wearing them on the street, but I keep telling her what a fashion and health trend she's starting!  There are lots of masks for sale in all the shops, just not on people's faces yet.

[Ausmumof3]

32 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

I don't think it's all deaths with the covid tests over 28 days.  But, I am not sure.  

https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/health-53722711?__twitter_impression=true
 

I found this from BBC.  Looks like it’s a hard 28 day cut off.  If you die on a ventilator after 4 weeks and 1 day it won’t be counted as covid.  However apparently lots of other countries are already doing this which seems dumb as well.  UK is also going to publish a 60 day statistic separately.  I had assumed that deaths would have been going on what the certifying doctor believed the person died of not car crashes as covid and not covid as other cause but apparently not.  Weird.

excess mortality is well above the new death statistic although 1000 or so below the old one which seems to indicate they’re doing it wrong either way.  If the stats I’m finding are right.

Edited August 13, 2020 by Ausmumof3

[TCB]

12 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/health-53722711?__twitter_impression=true
 

I found this from BBC.  Looks like it’s a hard 28 day cut off.  If you die on a ventilator after 4 weeks and 1 day it won’t be counted as covid.  However apparently lots of other countries are already doing this which seems dumb as well.  UK is also going to publish a 60 day statistic separately.  I had assumed that deaths would have been going on what the certifying doctor believed the person died of not car crashes as covid and not covid as other cause but apparently not.  Weird.

excess mortality is well above the new death statistic although 1000 or so below the old one which seems to indicate they’re doing it wrong either way.  If the stats I’m finding are right.

That's the article I saw earlier. It is deaths in England and it's to bring them in line with other parts of the UK. It does seem a bit silly though, as,  if you are on a vent because of Covid and you die after 4 weeks it was still the cause.

[Pen]

1 hour ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Looks like our cfr is higher and has gone up some since I last calculated (not surprising with the aged care outbreak).

i did check median age and it looks like we have median age of 37 and Costa Rica is 31.7 (from 2018).  Percentage of population over 65 for Aus is 16 versus 10 for Costa Rica.  
 

 

It’s hard to make apples to oranges comparisons.  

1 hour ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I guess this is why I really would like to see good trials that correct for all the stuff.  

I would like for it to be available for use easily without a fight Including for prophylaxis—for more vulnerable people by age or health status or work exposures.

1 hour ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I’m not anti HCQ and I might consider it for myself given no heart issues etc but would probably discourage people in my life with previous heart problems from taking it.  

 

 

No. Unless the specific heart issue is evaluated as not a contraindication it should not be used by people with heart problems or known allergy or past bad reactions to drugs in its class.  That just seems like basic common sense. 

[Ausmumof3]

42 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

It’s hard to make apples to oranges comparisons.  

I would like for it to be available for use easily without a fight Including for prophylaxis—for more vulnerable people by age or health status or work exposures.

 

No. Unless the specific heart issue is evaluated as not a contraindication it should not be used by people with heart problems or known allergy or past bad reactions to drugs in its class.  That just seems like basic common sense. 

I think as it stands you can use it but it should be part of a clinical trial.  This makes sense to me because it means we are going to build a better picture of the data.  Whereas if we prescribe it without tracking the outcomes we will never actually know whether it’s helping or not. As far as I can see from data we have now the risks are relatively low but so are the benefits.   I’m open to changing my mind on that but I just want to see something to make it seem like that.  Also not that I have a tonne of say but I hope that we don’t invest so much into researching this one drug that isn’t showing dramatic changes in outcomes and miss spending money and time on researching something else that might be better.  

[Ausmumof3]

48 minutes ago, TCB said:

That's the article I saw earlier. It is deaths in England and it's to bring them in line with other parts of the UK. It does seem a bit silly though, as,  if you are on a vent because of Covid and you die after 4 weeks it was still the cause.

If anything it would seem like countries using this method may have been undercounting deaths by a bit.

[Ausmumof3]

No new cases here again.  Still a little soon to be confident but hopefully the little outbreak hasn’t led to anymore spread.  
 

they are changing rules in SA so people can’t work across multiple aged care facilities and anyone coming within 1.5m of An aged care resident must wear appropriate PPE (basically just a mask except on certain circumstances a face shield).  Laws are being tightened around border communities which I imagine will be a major headache for some.  We are watching NZ with a bit of trepidation although we have kept some measure of distancing here we haven’t gone to fully open.

[Pen]

45 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I think as it stands you can use it but it should be part of a clinical trial.  This makes sense to me because it means we are going to build a better picture of the data.  Whereas if we prescribe it without tracking the outcomes we will never actually know whether it’s helping or not. As far as I can see from data we have now the risks are relatively low but so are the benefits.   I’m open to changing my mind on that but I just want to see something to make it seem like that.  Also not that I have a tonne of say but I hope that we don’t invest so much into researching this one drug that isn’t showing dramatic changes in outcomes and miss spending money and time on researching something else that might be better.  

 

I think Australia has few enough cases and deaths per population that that’s a reasonable approach for Australia.

I think USA is in more of an India, Costa Rica, Brazil situation and needs  potential help in pandemic illness reduction tools more readily and more immediately available.  And that time and energy should go to the research of new something elses that would be better. I think when excellent something elses are established people will gravitate to those new something betters.

[Ausmumof3]

Just saw that NZ had another 13 cases linked to the 4 so 17 in total!  I’m sure they are glad they locked down so fast.

[Laura Corin]

7 hours ago, Pen said:

 

Quite a lot of people take longer than 4 weeks.

 

Yes. The underlying  impetus for this is that Scotland and Wales already count this way, so England looks worse. 

[Pen]

21 minutes ago, Laura Corin said:

Yes. The underlying  impetus for this is that Scotland and Wales already count this way, so England looks worse. 

 

So based on how much it dropped the figures  England , what should we use as a multiplier to get a picture of UK deaths including those who died more than 28 days out? 

 

[Laura Corin]

1 hour ago, Pen said:

 

So based on how much it dropped the figures  England , what should we use as a multiplier to get a picture of UK deaths including those who died more than 28 days out? 

 

This page gives three measures of numbers of deaths. Probably death certificates is most complete 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51768274

ETA: This statistician discusses the overall figures in a fairly dispassionate way (article from ten days ago):

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/aug/02/uk-covid-19-excess-deaths?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB

Edited August 13, 2020 by Laura Corin

[Ausmumof3]

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN25902B?__twitter_impression=true
 

yet another frozen food story from china

[Corraleno]

NYT article suggests that we are seriously undercounting Covid deaths, since there were 219,000 excess deaths from March 1st to July 25th. There are lots more charts and graphs in the article, which is well worth a read.

[Laura Corin]

8 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

NYT article suggests that we are seriously undercounting Covid deaths, since there were 219,000 excess deaths from March 1st to July 25th. There are lots more charts and graphs in the article, which is well worth a read.

Excess deaths are useful but don't necessary show Covid deaths only.  People with other illnesses who don't go to hospital because they fear Covid would also be included, for example.

[Ausmumof3]

We shopped on store today . Not groceries but department store because I needed some stationery for school.  The shelves are definitely looking bare here.  I’m wondering how long till they go back to normal.  If ever?

[Ausmumof3]

4 kids under the age of 10 in Melbourne have been hospitalised with COVID up from none yesterday.