Novel Coronavirus – China

[alexisj9]

5 minutes ago, emax said:

Not gonna have this discussion again, but the meat practices in China caused it, so you can't blame anyone else. Of course there's the conspiracies of man made etc, which I'm open minded about, but take with a pinch of salt, but if the conspiracies were true, then the buck would still stop at China. I cant see how anyone can deny that China isn't to blame, either directly or indirectly. 

Sorry, but I do not believe that as there is some evidence all be it slim, that the virus was around before the market out break. 

[Spikecollie]

1 minute ago, nick sussex said:

No shortage of toilet rolls in this part of France although bizarely there wasn’t a single  whole chicken left  at the Intermarche .

Which ruined my plans for coronation chicken . I refuse to buy just pieces as they’re a rip off , you never get the same flavour and the breast dries out too much .

In other news from as you can see my exciting lifestyle I was given some strange looks for simply handwiping the shopping trolley handle .

Anyway it’s all going to hell in a hand cart here in France . Next time I’ll just head straight for the drinks section , did you know Scottish whisky is cheaper here in France than in the UK . Which I think is pretty outrageous !

By the way I think this thread is great , and I feel like we’re  the internet version of the Walking Dead survivors !

Shame that series is turning into another Lost though ! 

 

Totally agree about the dried out "poulet". I sanitised my hands after the supermarket. Who knows who has been buying the t-rolls here - some bleedin' a'holes! It's Ambazac for the Universe's sake and Limoges is only 30 mins away but I am not driving there for bog rolls!

I have to admit that if I drank alcohol, I would be tempted, but since I don't I bought chocolate instead and had a few bits after an extremely wet run with the doglet. All my footwear is sodden now and my boots haven't dried despite three days by the heat. I think this ghastly weather (here at least) is making people buy too much toilet roll!!!

[Daniel*]

3 minutes ago, Spikecollie said:

Will it make us think more about the horrific inequalities in our so called civilised world? Maybe it will take something much, much worse...

I despair just thinking about my fellow human beings who have no defence, protection or governance against this.

We are so fortunate in our so called developed societies to have relatively advanced medical and social care. Just think about living in a makeshift dwelling with no running water or sanitation and no medical facilities and getting ill. A daily reality that is about to get worse...

This is why what we are seeing from Italy is seriously concerning Italy has one of best health systems in world the population are also very healthy, even elderly are made of hard stuff, Bloomberg study done in 2017 showed Italians to be healthiest in world with the med diet and plenty of sunshine. 

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

WWW.BLOOMBERG.COM

 

[emax]

1 minute ago, Daniel* said:

It is not going to happen but hypothetical if entire earth’s human population got infected with 1% mortality rate that is 77 million people dead, if half of world’s population got infected which is much more feasible that is 35 million people. If 20% got infected that is still millions. And mention of worst case scenario being 60-80% - to me it looks as virulent as swine flu this was believed to have infected 20% - and that was estimated to take up to 500,000 lives, with a very low death rate 0.05%, I don’t think people recognise how many people this virus could kill even with only 1% mortality rate.

My greatest worry is with sub Saharan Africa it would ravage them, huge population growth in Africa too.. while we are understandably worried about Europe, the greatest concern is with developing nations.  

There are on average I think around 50million deaths each year around the world. Even at 77 million (which would be very unlikely), I doubt that would all be in one single year. Plus you'd have vaccines or treatments which will at least take the edge off the CFR, if not protect against the virus altogether. Now even if say 35 million people died in one single year (I guess you cant rule that out, but very very unlikely), those people would on average be older and at risk patients. 

Now, before I get linched for suggesting they dont matter, I'm not saying that at all. But, shutting down a country for several months, probably more if you wanted to actually stop all spread and re-spread, for the sake of those type of deaths, just isnt a fair reality. Obviously we can do everything we possibly can to save lifes and improve outcomes, but only up to a certain point.

A crude example, but just trying to explain my point..............If an elder neighbour or relative was 80 with say poor life expectancy or whatever, would you be happy to give everything of yours (house, savings, every bit of money) so they could live a few years more, but leave you penniless and homeless? As I say, its not a great example, but I think this is kinda where the perspective side comes in. Yes we should absolutely do everything we can to save lives, however old the patient is...........but, there comes a point where destroying an economy and many many peoples lives and livelihoods, just isnt the right approach. It may not be nice, and its certainly harsh, but, that is the harsh reality of life. Thats why to a point, younger people with bad illnesses or diseases etc, generally get a more expedited treatment than the elderly. Obviously it would be great to have the money and resources to help everyone, but no country has that capability, so eventually, harsh decisions have to be made.

 

Sorry for the ramble, just ended up going on a bit lol

[Ryukai]

Coronavirus: UK maps and charts

WWW.BBC.CO.UK

---

Key maps and charts explaining how the respiratory infection has spread in the UK and how the government is dealing with it.

 

[Methuselah]

6 minutes ago, Spikecollie said:

Totally agree about the dried out "poulet". I sanitised my hands after the supermarket. Who knows who has been buying the t-rolls here - some bleedin' a'holes! It's Ambazac for the Universe's sake and Limoges is only 30 mins away but I am not driving there for bog rolls!

I have to admit that if I drank alcohol, I would be tempted, but since I don't I bought chocolate instead and had a few bits after an extremely wet run with the doglet. All my footwear is sodden now and my boots haven't dried despite three days by the heat. I think this ghastly weather (here at least) is making people buy too much toilet roll!!!

If someone doesn't solve the all-important loo-roll crisis, and solve it soon, the sheet will certainly start to hit the fan!

Edited March 6, 2020 by General Cluster

[DAVID SNOW]

10 minutes ago, Spikecollie said:

Will it make us think more about the horrific inequalities in our so called civilised world? Maybe it will take something much, much worse...

I despair just thinking about my fellow human beings who have no defence, protection or governance against this.

We are so fortunate in our so called developed societies to have relatively advanced medical and social care. Just think about living in a makeshift dwelling with no running water or sanitation and no medical facilities and getting ill. A daily reality that is about to get worse...

A bit like the millions of Syrians who have been living in camps for years..................

[nick sussex]

6 minutes ago, emax said:

There are on average I think around 50million deaths each year around the world. Even at 77 million (which would be very unlikely), I doubt that would all be in one single year. Plus you'd have vaccines or treatments which will at least take the edge off the CFR, if not protect against the virus altogether. Now even if say 35 million people died in one single year (I guess you cant rule that out, but very very unlikely), those people would on average be older and at risk patients. 

Now, before I get linched for suggesting they dont matter, I'm not saying that at all. But, shutting down a country for several months, probably more if you wanted to actually stop all spread and re-spread, for the sake of those type of deaths, just isnt a fair reality. Obviously we can do everything we possibly can to save lifes and improve outcomes, but only up to a certain point.

A crude example, but just trying to explain my point..............If an elder neighbour or relative was 80 with say poor life expectancy or whatever, would you be happy to give everything of yours (house, savings, every bit of money) so they could live a few years more, but leave you penniless and homeless? As I say, its not a great example, but I think this is kinda where the perspective side comes in. Yes we should absolutely do everything we can to save lives, however old the patient is...........but, there comes a point where destroying an economy and many many peoples lives and livelihoods, just isnt the right approach. It may not be nice, and its certainly harsh, but, that is the harsh reality of life. Thats why to a point, younger people with bad illnesses or diseases etc, generally get a more expedited treatment than the elderly. Obviously it would be great to have the money and resources to help everyone, but no country has that capability, so eventually, harsh decisions have to be made.

 

Sorry for the ramble, just ended up going on a bit lol

Don’t apologize . I thought your post was excellent and sums up the difficulties and moral dilemmas .

Theres no way to really avoid the spread of the virus without trashing the economy and many people’s livelihoods. But if everyone takes it seriously and takes sensible precautions then we can slow its spread . 

 

[swebby]

2 hours ago, Gray-Wolf said:

?

Entry, via a mucus membrane, to develop No's at the back of the nose/top of the throat and then migration to the lower Lung lobes?

I'm missing your point somehow? 

Possibly crossed wires?

I am reading it as you are very concerned that fecal-oral transmission could be a real issue with Covid-19 leading to a runaway epidemic? Your concerns based  on your experince of what Norovirus can do to a hospital ward? 

If i've got this wrong GW, then apologies. But if you are thinking that covid-19 could replicate the incredible transmission rates of Norovirus, then you may be worrying unnecessarily.

Norovirus is incredibly infectious, think i've read base reproduction numbers of over 15, so up there with measles. As an infection of the gut, it is perfectly  adapted to being transmitted through fecal matter, but the real key to it's ability to go flying through the population is probably that it then takes only a few virus particles to cause a full blown infection.  Covid-19, as a respiratory disease,  will not be anywhere near as well adapted for this route of infection. That is not to say that it can not be spread this way, it could, exactly in the manner you describe above, but if so, it will likely only account for a small % of infections. Only a small percentage of cases are presenting with diarrhea, but more importantly, i understand that at this stage, clear evidence that fecal matter contains viable live virus (rather than chewed up bits of virus that can give a false positive) is limited.  Again, if i've misunderstood your concerns then apologies

[Spikecollie]

6 minutes ago, General Cluster said:

If someone doesn't solve the all-important loo-roll crisis, and solve it soon, the sheet will certainly start to hit the fan!

There was a very interesting article on BFTMTV about the psychology of hoarding, and that's what it is. It is a mechanism of exercising control (that Iknew) but it is particularly true for intimate items like toilet rolls and sanitary products. Food is secondary to intimate bodily needs.

I understand - but please let's relax, take deep breaths and leave some toilet rolls for everyone - I don't buy newspapers, so don't even go there...

[Spikecollie]

7 minutes ago, DAVID SNOW said:

A bit like the millions of Syrians who have been living in camps for years..................

Sadly, yes. There are many more elsewhere - forgotten people, forgotten suffering.

[Wiltshire_snow_lover]

 

[swebby]

55 minutes ago, emax said:

But bringing the country to a standstill, and the massive economic implications that causes,  because of a 1-4% death rate isn't a good idea either. Its a fine balance in reality.

It boils down to politics.

A 4% death rate (1 in 25!) isn't a good idea for any politician wanting to be re-elected. People may forgive months of economic woes come polling day 3-4 years down the line, less likely to forgive and forget a dead relative.

[Crepuscular Ray]

31 minutes ago, Gael_Force said:

Think about going food shopping... thousands of products .... any one of which could be contaminated by someone just before you sneezing over the shelf/display rack. You pick up something and touch your face without thinking.... hand washing and sanitising are great but cannot protect you entirely.

Anti bacterial hand wipes are not going to help. It's a virus.

If the worst-case scenario comes off, what the virus is going to do in countries without adequate health care is beyond imagining. Even Trump's lowest estimate of a 1% death rate would imply 70 million people dying.

[Summer Sun]

2nd death confirmed in the UK the patient was at Milton Keynes University Hospital and had underlying health conditions.

[DAVID SNOW]

4 minutes ago, Spikecollie said:

Sadly, yes. There are many more elsewhere - forgotten people, forgotten suffering.

Sad world really, it only becomes important when things start to affect the 'leading'  more civilized  countries lol,

Not in my back yard springs to mind............. very sad, but that's human nature for you........

[feb1991blizzard]

3 minutes ago, Crepuscular Ray said:

Anti bacterial hand wipes are not going to help. It's a virus.

If the worst-case scenario comes off, what the virus is going to do in countries without adequate health care is beyond imagining. Even Trump's lowest estimate of a 1% death rate would imply 70 million people dying.

Does that mean all the years i have been paying 1.50 per pack from tesco mean that it was never going to wipe away any flu germs on my hand at all and i have been wasting my money, and all the people that have stopped me buying them today by swiping the whole shelf down are wasting their money, also does that mean the hand gel is useless too?

[swebby]

1 hour ago, Spikecollie said:

Interesting response from government I have just read here. Pharmacies have been authorised to produce their own alcohol hand gels - all must sell for a pre-determined price of 3€ per 100 ml no matter where they are sold.

I wonder how you make it - apparently vodka doesn't work according to a BBC article I read earlier today as it needs at least 60% alcohol. Anyone got a recipe? I've made soap...

My understanding from biology colleagues is the % ratio is very important. 70% ethanol is what gets used in biochemistry, strong enough alcohol content to denature proteins and disrupt bio-films, but enough water to "hydrate" the microbes bio-molecules to allow the alcohol to penetrate. 100% alcohol can by repelled by some biological structures, so the inclusion of water is required. Working in a chemistry lab, we just tend to whack stuff with concentrated bleach or dump in a base bath.

[Spikecollie]

3 minutes ago, feb1991blizzard said:

Does that mean all the years i have been paying 1.50 per pack from tesco mean that it was never going to wipe away any flu germs on my hand at all and i have been wasting my money, and all the people that have stopped me buying them today by swiping the whole shelf down are wasting their money, also does that mean the hand gel is useless too?

Anti-baterical=kills bacteria. High alcohol content is needed to stop viruses. Anti-bacterial handwipes are still useful, just not for viruses...

[nick sussex]

8 minutes ago, Crepuscular Ray said:

Anti bacterial hand wipes are not going to help. It's a virus.

If the worst-case scenario comes off, what the virus is going to do in countries without adequate health care is beyond imagining. Even Trump's lowest estimate of a 1% death rate would imply 70 million people dying.

A lot of the French ones I buy say they kill 99.99 % of bacteria  but also include La grippe which means flu as things they kill .

So hopefully that’s okay otherwise I’ve been wasting my money ! 

 

[feb1991blizzard]

1 minute ago, swebby said:

My understanding from biology colleagues is the % ratio is very important. 70% ethanol is what gets used in biochemistry, strong enough alcohol content to denature proteins and disrupt bio-films, but enough water to "hydrate" the microbes bio-molecules to allow the alcohol to penetrate. 100% alcohol can by repelled by some biological structures, so the inclusion of water is required. Working in a chemistry lab, we just tend to whack stuff with concentrated bleach or dump in a base bath.

If 70% alcohol does the trick outside the human body, why is it that infected people cannot just drink absinth and would this not destroy the virus inside the blood stream?

[feb1991blizzard]

1 minute ago, Spikecollie said:

Anti-baterical=kills bacteria. High alcohol content is needed to stop viruses. Anti-bacterial handwipes are still useful, just not for viruses...

So i need something with high alcohol content in it then - would absinth suffice?

[Spikecollie]

3 minutes ago, swebby said:

My understanding from biology colleagues is the % ratio is very important. 70% ethanol is what gets used in biochemistry, strong enough alcohol content to denature proteins and disrupt bio-films, but enough water to "hydrate" the microbes bio-molecules to allow the alcohol to penetrate. 100% alcohol can by repelled by some biological structures, so the inclusion of water is required. Working in a chemistry lab, we just tend to whack stuff with concentrated bleach or dump in a base bath.

That was my understanding too. I was just wondering how you could home-make it. Thanks for the scientific profile...

[abruzzi spur]

10 minutes ago, Crepuscular Ray said:

Anti bacterial hand wipes are not going to help. It's a virus.

If the worst-case scenario comes off, what the virus is going to do in countries without adequate health care is beyond imagining. Even Trump's lowest estimate of a 1% death rate would imply 70 million people dying.

Anti bac stuff will work but it depends on its make up.  That's why hand gels are effective provided they have an alcohol content of at least 60%.  This destroys the coating on this particular virus.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/28/hand-sanitiser-or-hand-washing-which-more-effective-against-coronavirus-covid-19

[nick sussex]

Just now, feb1991blizzard said:

If 70% alcohol does the trick outside the human body, why is it that infected people cannot just drink absinth and would this not destroy the virus inside the blood stream?

No because the 70% wouldn’t end up in the blood stream , if it did you’d be in real trouble !