Jump to content

COVID-19 Articles, Cases, Discussions, Monitoring, and Questions


Recommended Posts

Kahuna
9 hours ago, Headshot said:

It has now been discovered that this virus is mutating quickly. There are at least a couple of dozen mutations already around the world, which could explain the re-infection situation. Even if you have already been infected by one mutation, another mutation may still be able to infect you as well. It just highlights the fact that there is more about this virus that we don't know than there is that we do know.

You do know that once a virus mutates it's not the same anymore?  If you get sick with covid-19 and it mutates and you then get sick with it's mutation[covid-19[a] or whatever they will name it],then you're fighting a "different" virus.  That's the nature of colds and flu.  You never have to fight the same one twice..

So yes..I still stand by that..  :hi:

A virus that mutates sounds better than getting sick by the same one over and over.   

I have heard that there may be at least 2 different strains.one's not as aggressive as the other but it's not been proven yet.

Here's what's out on that:

Quote

Scientists have identified two strains of the coronavirus outbreak crippling the world, according to early research. Scientists from Peking University’s School of Life Sciences and the Institut Pasteur of Shanghai sequenced genomes to find a less aggressive ancestor type, which they call “S”, and a more aggressive “L” type. While the “L” type is more prevalent and made up 70 per cent of their analyses, the team suggest human intervention may have “shifted the relative abundance of L and S type soon after the outbreak”. “Whereas the L type was more prevalent in the early stages of the outbreak in Wuhan, the frequency of the L type decreased after early January,” the researchers said. “The S type, which is evolutionarily older and less aggressive, might have increased in relative frequency due to relatively weaker selective pressure.” The “S” type, an ancestor of the “L” type, accounted for 30 per cent of their analyses.

I think there are going to need more than a one shot cures all solution. 

They need to track this alot better since it sounds like it's possibly a shifting mutagenic virus now  If it's confirmed there is 2 versions there becomes a big chance for more that that and the longer it goes on the better the chances.

Edited by Kahuna
info added
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Headshot

    420

  • Kahuna

    299

  • Dafey

    165

  • lamoe

    149

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This is a follow up to a Post I made regarding my nephew and Partner and child that had covide. He has improved that no oxygen is needed now but it did fall to 90% at one point...The child was on

Yep, 39% effective against actually getting the Delta variant or showing symptoms. The same study also found the Pfizer vaccine is 88% effective in preventing hospitalisation and 91% effective in

You act like this is something new...  Talk about what's going on anywhere you like as long as you leave politics out of it. There are thousands of posts on the pandemic that have managed to

Posted Images

4 hours ago, Headshot said:

The study Dr. Campbell is talking about was done in China. Another study (which I believe was done in Europe) looked at samples taken from cases from around the world, and they picked up numerous mutations.

 

1 hour ago, Kahuna said:

A virus that mutates sounds better than getting sick by the same one over and over.   

I have heard that there may be at least 2 different strains.one's not as aggressive as the other but it's not been proven yet.

If you want to get up to date and reliable information regarding strains. There are many....and can be tracked

https://mobile.twitter.com/K_G_Andersen/status/1235076890752208898

Scientists have chosen that their  "pro forma" info channel is Twitter for 2 reasons:

1. It is fast and real time 

2. Fast peer review is given (so fake experts are uncovered faster)

Youtube is slow and people can post their own (some times distorted and biased, read paid, view). On Twitter people will take it apart and scientists can quickly endorse or reveal "fake "experts (and also chained, meaning several threads can be started).

Edited by Cgu
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Kahuna
1 minute ago, Cgu said:

 

If you want to get up to date and reliable information regarding strains. There are many....and can be tracked

https://mobile.twitter.com/K_G_Andersen/status/1235076890752208898

Scientists have chosen that their  "pro forma" info channel is Twitter for 2 reasons:

1. It is fast an real time 

2. Fast peer review is given

Youtube is slow and people can post their own (some times distorted and biased, read paid, view). On Twitter people will take it apart and scientists can quickly endorse or reveal "fake "experts (and also chained, meaning several threads can be started).

I'm not on twitter but maybe others like it so thanks for the input. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kahuna
Quote

The coronavirus, which continues to steadily spread to many parts of the world, has evolved into at least two major types, according to Chinese researchers. In a study published on March 3, 2020, in the National Science Review, the journal of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the scientists from Peking University and the Institut Pasteur of Shanghai said the mutations have distinct rates of transmission and geographical distributions.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
JohnSurrey

I might have asked this before... regarding the statistics:

 

Are all countries counting the virus in the same way - seems RP has it's own somewhat selective methodology (RITM)  but other countries are simply using the RDT and testing far more people?

https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1095619

Obviously comforting to know that there are not many cases being reported in RP :D

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Kahuna
1 minute ago, JohnSurrey said:

I might have asked this before... regarding the statistics:

 

Are all countries counting the virus in the same way - seems RP has it's own somewhat selective methodology (RITM)  but other countries are simply using the RDT and testing far more people?

https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1095619

Obviously comforting to know that there are not many cases being reported in RP :D

Every country counts it's own as far as I can tell ,but you can check it out with the perma links provided and decide for yourself if you like.. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kahuna

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

 Comparison update from yesterday to now

98.415 total

3,385 deaths

55,619 recoveries

The coronavirus COVID-19 is affecting 89 countries and territories around the world and 1 international conveyance (the Diamond Princess cruise ship harbored in Yokohama, Japan)

Quote

Latest Updates

March 5 (GMT):

 

1 new case in Argentina: a 23-year old man who had recently traveled to Italy [source]

 1st case in Costa Rica: a woman who had traveled to Italy and Tunisia [source]

1 new case in Chile: a Cook County resident in his 20s who flew into O’Hare after traveling from Italy where he caught the illness [source]'

2 new cases in Hungary: including a man in Debrecen who works in Milan, Italy [source]

1 new case in New Zealand: the partner of a previously confirmed case [source]'

63 new cases and 1 new death in the United States, including at least:
- 1st case in Colorado [source]'
- 1 case in Middlesex County, Massachusetts
- fifth case in Illinois a person who returned from Italy. He’s in isolation at Rush. [source]'
- second case in New Jersey: a 32-year-old man from Fort Lee [source]'
- 2 cases in Harris County, Texas: both are travel-related [source]'
- 1 new death in King County (Washington state): a woman in her 90s
- a resident of Sonoma County (second case there) who traveled internationally on the Grand Princess ship from San Francisco to Mexico [source]
- 4 in Los Angeles County, California [source]
- the 1st cases in San Francisco, California [source]'
- 11 in New York State: 3 are in serious condition and are treated in intensive care units [source] New cases include a man in his 40s and a woman in her 80s [source]
- the 1st case in Nevada [source]
- 1 in Tennessee (Williamson County) [source]
- a Facebook worker in Seattle [source]
- the 1st case in New Jersey: a man in his 30s hospitalized in Bergen County [source]

138 new cases and 3 new deaths in France, including the first 3 cases in Corsica [source] [source]

7 new cases in Ireland: including the first in Cork, with no recent history of travel, who is being treated in an intensive care unit. [source]

1 new death in Iran today is of a senior Iranian politician, Hossein Sheikholeslam, Iran’s former ambassador to Syria and former advisor to current Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif. He was 67 years old [source]

5 new cases in Brazil [source]

1 new case in Luxembourg: a person who had recently returned from Northern Italy [source]

 283 new cases in Germany [source]

 First 7 cases in Palestine, West Bank. 5 new cases in addition to the first 2 reported earlier. Palestinian Authority closes Bethlehem churches and mosques for two weeks [source] [source]

 1st death in the UK, an older patient with pre-existing conditions. [source]

 769 new cases and 41 new deaths in Italy, which becomes the country with the largest daily increase in cases and deaths in the world. [source]
Among the 3,296 active cases, 1,790 (54%) are hospitalized, 331 of which (representing 11% of active cases) are in intensive care.
Among the 562 closed cases, 414 (74%) have recovered, 148 (26%) have died.

42 new cases in Sweden, bringing the total number of cases in the country to 94. [source]

5 new cases in Slovenia [source]

5 new cases in Denmark including former Danish footballer Thomas Kahlenberg [source]

28 new cases in the UK [source]

2 new cases in Israel [source]

1 new case and 1 new death in Iraq: a 65-year-old person in Baghdad [source] [source]

1 new case in Israel [source]

2 new cases and 1 new recovery in Canada (Ontario) [source]

3 new cases in Ecuador: all linked to the first confirmed case [source]

1 new case in Oman: a man who had recently traveled to Milan, Italy [source]

Diamond Princess cruise ship: The Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare has corrected the number of cases from 706 to 696. After examining the results of the virus test, it was reported that some people were counted twice. [source]

4 new cases in the Czech Republic [source]

1 new case in Lebanon: a Lebanese woman coming from Britain [source]

3 new cases in Portugal: two males, aged between 40 and 50, admitted to São João Hospital in Porto, and a man in Lisbon who had recently traveled to Italy [source]

44 new cases in the Netherlands [source]

26 new cases and 1st death in Switzerland: a 74-year-old woman who had been hospitalized since March 3. The woman suffered from a chronic illness. Source of infection still unclear. [source] [source]

54 new cases and 1 death in Spain [source]

33 new cases in Japan, including 8 in Tokyo and 8 in Aichi

5 new cases in the Republic of San Marino bringing the total to 21: 15 are hospitalized, 3 are in serious condition. [source]

1 new case in India (Ghaziabad) [source]

22 new cases in Greece [source]

1 new case in Canada (Québec) [source]

5 new cases and 2 new recoveries in Singapore [source]

3 new cases in Saudi Arabia [source]

 1st case in South Africa: a 38-year-old man who had traveled to Italy with his wife. They were part of a group of 10 who arrived back in South Africa on March 1. [source]

9 new cases in Iceland [source]

1 new case in Egypt, bringing the total to 3 [source]

3 new cases and 3 new recoveries in Bahrain [source]

5 new cases in Malaysia [source]

27 new cases in Belgium [source]

6 new case in Georgia: a person who had recently visited Italy. [source]

3 new cases in Azebaijan: they had all visited Iran. [source]

3 new case in Estonia: including a resident of Tallinn who had been on the same flight from Bergamo, Italy, to Riga as the second confirmed case. [source]

1 new case in Slovenia: a person who was in contact with the first case. [source]

 591 new cases and 15 new deaths in Iran

5 new cases in Finland: 3 in the Helsinki and Uusimaa hospital district, 1 is in Pirkanmaa and 1 in Kanta-Häme. The case in Kanta-Häme is a child in Hämeenlinna who had returned from northern Italy with their family on Tuesday. [source]

3 new cases in Scotland (UK) [source]

1 new case in Russia: an Italian citizen [source]

 1st case in Bosnia and Herzegovina: a middle-aged man and his child who recently visited Italy. His wife tested negative. He is in stable condition, hospitalized in isolation in Banja Luka. School children who have had contact with the infected child will now be tested. [source]

1 new case in Morocco: a Moroccan woman who recently returned to Casablanca from Italy. [source]

2 new cases in Kuwait [source] [source]

8 new cases in Norway [source]

15 new cases in Austria [source]

4 new cases in Thailand [source]
- a 29 year-old Italian man who arrived in Thailand on March 1
- a 42 year-old Thai male office worker who returned from Italy
- a 22 year-old Chinese male student who was screened with symptoms while in transit at Bangkok’s Suvarnabhumi Airport while traveling from Iran to China.
- a 20 year-old Thai male student who arrived from Iran on Feb. 27

467 new cases, 5 new deaths, and 47 new recoveries in South Korea [source] [source]

139 new cases (134 in Hubei), 31 new deaths (all in Hubei) and 2,189 new discharges occurred in China on March 4, as reported by the National Health Commission (NHC) of China.

Quote

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Mortality Rate

Last updated: March 5, 3:00 GMT

See also: Death Rate by Age and Sex of COVID-19 patients

On this page:

3.4% Mortality Rate estimate by the WHO as of March 3

Mortality Rate in China as of Feb. 20 (3.8% nationwide, 5.8% in Wuhan, 0.7% other areas)

Mortality Rate in China as of Feb. 4 (2.1% nationwide, 4.9% Wuhan, 3.1% Hubei, and 0.16% other provinces) reported by the NHC of China

Study providing a tentative mortality rate of 3%

Death rate among patients admitted to hospital (HFR): 15%

Days from first symptom to death: 14 days

Comparison with other viruses

How to calculate the mortality rate during an outbreak

3.4% Mortality Rate estimate by the World Health Organization (WHO) as of March 3

In his opening remarks at the March 3 media briefing on Covid-19, WHO Director-General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus stated:

“Globally, about 3.4% of reported COVID-19 cases have died. By comparison, seasonal flu generally kills far fewer than 1% of those infected.” [13]

Initial estimate was 2%

Initially, the World Health Organization (WHO) had mentioned 2% as a mortality rate estimate in a press conference on Wednesday, January 29 [1][2] and again on February 10. However, on January 29 WHO specified that this was a very early and provisional estimate that might have changed. Surveillance was increasing, within China but also globally, but at the time it was said that:

We don't know how many were infected ("When you look at how many people have died, you need to look at how many people where infected, and right now we don't know that number. So it is early to put a percentage on that."[1][2]).

The only number currently known is how many people have died out of those who have been reported to the WHO.

It is therefore very early to make any conclusive statements about what the overall mortality rate will be for the novel coronavirus, according to the World Health Organization [1][2].

Mortality Rate as of Feb. 20 in China (findings from the Report of the WHO-China Joint Mission)

The Report of the WHO-China Joint Mission published on Feb. 28 by WHO [12] is based on 55,924 laboratory confirmed cases. The report notes that "The Joint Mission acknowledges the known challenges and biases of reporting crude CFR early in an epidemic" (see also our discussion on: How to calculate the mortality rate during an outbreak). Here are its findings on Case Fatality Ratio, or CFR (the mortality rate):

"As of 20 February, 2,114 of the 55,924 laboratory confirmed cases have died (crude fatality ratio [CFR: 3.8%) (note: at least some of whom were identified using a case definition that included pulmonary disease).

The overall CFR varies by location and intensity of transmission (i.e. 5.8% in Wuhan vs. 0.7% in other areas in China).

In China, the overall CFR was higher in the early stages of the outbreak (17.3% for cases with symptom onset from 1-10 January) and has reduced over time to 0.7% for patients with symptom onset after 1 February. " [12]

The Joint Mission noted that the standard of care has evolved over the course of the outbreak.

Mortality Rate, as discussed by the National Health Commission (NHC) of China on Feb. 4

Asked at a press conference on February 4 what the current mortality rate (or case fatality rate, CFR) is, an official with China NHC said that [7]:

The formula they are using is: cumulative current total deaths / current confirmed cases. Therefore, as of 24:00 on Feb. 3, the formula used was 425/20,438.

Based on this figure, the national mortality rate to date was 2.1% of confirmed cases.

There might be mild cases and other cases not reported.

97% of the country's total deaths (414) were in the Hubei Province.

Mortality rate in Wuhan was 4.9%.

Mortality rate in the Hubei Province was 3.1%.

Mortality rate nationwide was 2.1%.

Fatality rate in other provinces was 0.16%.

Deaths in Wuhan were 313, accounting for 74% of China's total.

Most of the cases were still mild cases, therefore there was no need to panic.

Asked why Wuhan was so much higher than the national level, the NHC official replied that it was for lack of resources, citing as an example that there were only 110 critical care beds in the three designated hospitals where most of the cases were sent.

National mortality rate was basically stable, as of Feb. 4 at 2.1%, and it was 2.3% at the beginning of the epidemic, which can be seen as a slight decline.

Front the analysis of death cases, it emerged that the demographic profile was mainly male, accounting for 2/3, females accounting for 1/3, and is mainly elderly, more than 80% are elderly over 60 years old, and more than 75% had underlying diseases present such as cardiovascular and cardiovascular diseases, diabetes and, in some cases, tumor.

Elderly people with basic diseases, as long as they have pneumonia, were clinically a high-risk factor regardless of whether it is a coronavirus or not, and the case fatality rate was also very high, so it is not that the case fatality rate of pneumonia is high because of the infection with the new coronavirus. "This point must be explained to everyone," concluded the NHC official.[7]

Preliminary study providing a tentative 3% estimate for case fatality rate

A preliminary study published on The Lancet on January 24 [3] provided an early estimation of 3% for the overall case fatality rate. Below we show an extract (highlights added for the relevant data and observations):

Of the 41 patients in this cohort, 22 (55%) developed severe dyspnoea and 13 (32%) required admission to an intensive care unit, and six died.

Hence, the case-fatality proportion in this cohort is approximately 14.6%, and the overall case fatality proportion appears to be closer to 3%.

However, both of these estimates should be treated with great caution because not all patients have concluded their illness (ie, recovered or died) and the true number of infections and full disease spectrum are unknown.

Importantly, in emerging viral infection outbreaks the case-fatality ratio is often overestimated in the early stages because case detection is highly biased towards the more severe cases.

As further data on the spectrum of mild or asymptomatic infection becomes available, one case of which was documented by Chan and colleagues, the case-fatality ratio is likely to decrease.

Nevertheless, the 1918 influenza pandemic is estimated to have had a case-fatality ratio of less than 5% but had an enormous impact due to widespread transmission, so there is no room for complacency.

A novel coronavirus outbreak of global health concern - Chen Wang et al., The Lancet. January 24, 2020
 

Fatality rate can also change as a virus can mutate, according to epidemiologists.

Death rate among patients admitted to hospital

A study on 138 hospitalized patients with 2019-nCoV infection, published on February 7 on JAMA, found that 26% of patients required admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) and 4.3% died, but a number of patients were still hospitalized at the time. [9]

A previous study had found that, out of 41 admitted hospital patients, 13 (32%) patients were admitted to an ICU and six (15%) died.[5]

Days from first symptom to death

The Wang et al. February 7 study published on JAMA found that the median time from first symptom to dyspnea was 5.0 days, to hospital admission was 7.0 days, and to ARDS was 8.0 days.[9]

Previously. the China National Health Commission reported the details of the first 17 deaths up to 24 pm 22 Jan 2020. A study of these cases found that the median days from first symptom to death were 14 (range 6-41) days, and tended to be shorter among people of 70 year old or above (11.5 [range 6-19] days) than those with ages below 70 year old (20 [range 10-41] days.[6]

Median Hospital Stay

The JANA study found that, among those discharged alive, the median hospital stay was 10 days.[9]

Comparison with other viruses

For comparison, the case fatality rate with seasonal flu in the United States is less than 0.1% (1 death per every 1,000 cases).

Mortality rate for SARS was 10%, and for MERS 34%.

VirusDeath Rate

Wuhan Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV)

2%*

SARS

9.6%

MERS

34%

Swine Flu

0.02%


*estimate

How to calculate the mortality rate during an outbreak

At present, it is tempting to estimate the case fatality rate by dividing the number of known deaths by the number of confirmed cases. The resulting number, however, does not represent the true case fatality rate and might be off by orders of magnitude [...]

A precise estimate of the case fatality rate is therefore impossible at present.

2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): estimating the case fatality rate – a word of caution - Battegay Manue et al., Swiss Med Wkly, February 7, 2020

 

The case fatality rate (CFR) represents the proportion of cases who eventually die from a disease.

Once an epidemic has ended, it is calculated with the formula: deaths / cases.

But while an epidemic is still ongoing, as it is the case with the current novel coronavirus outbreak, this formula is, at the very least, "naïve" and can be "misleading if, at the time of analysis, the outcome is unknown for a non negligible proportion of patients." [8]

(Methods for Estimating the Case Fatality Ratio for a Novel, Emerging Infectious Disease - Ghani et al, American Journal of Epidemiology).

 

In other words, current deaths belong to a total case figure of the past, not to the current case figure in which the outcome (recovery or death) of a proportion (the most recent cases) hasn't yet been determined.

The correct formula, therefore, would appear to be:

CFR = deaths at day.x / cases at day.x-{T}
(where T = average time period from case confirmation to death)

This would constitute a fair attempt to use values for cases and deaths belonging to the same group of patients.

One issue can be that of determining whether there is enough data to estimate T with any precision, but it is certainly not T = 0 (what is implicitly used when applying the formula current deaths / current cases to determine CFR during an ongoing outbreak).

Let's take, for example, the data at the end of February 8, 2020: 813 deaths (cumulative total) and 37,552 cases (cumulative total) worldwide.

If we use the formula (deaths / cases) we get:

813 / 37,552 = 2.2% CFR (flawed formula).

With a conservative estimate of T = 7 days as the average period from case confirmation to death, we would correct the above formula by using February 1 cumulative cases, which were 14,381, in the denominator:

Feb. 8 deaths / Feb. 1 cases = 813 / 14,381 = 5.7% CFR (correct formula, and estimating T=7).

T could be estimated by simply looking at the value of (current total deaths + current total recovered) and pair it with a case total in the past that has the same value. For the above formula, the matching dates would be January 26/27, providing an estimate for T of 12 to 13 days. This method of estimating T uses the same logic of the following method, and therefore will yield the same result.

An alternative method, which has the advantage of not having to estimate a variable, and that is mentioned in the American Journal of Epidemiology study cited previously as a simple method that nevertheless could work reasonably well if the hazards of death and recovery at any time t measured from admission to the hospital, conditional on an event occurring at time t, are proportional, would be to use the formula:

CFR = deaths / (deaths + recovered)

which, with the latest data available, would be equal to:

3,385 / (3,385 + 55,619) = 6% CFR (worldwide)

If we now exclude cases in mainland China, using current data on deaths and recovered cases, we get:

343 / (343 + 1,877) = 15.5% CFR (outside of mainland China)

The sample size above is limited, and the data could be inaccurate (for example, the number of recoveries in countries outside of China could be lagging in our collection of data from numerous sources, whereas the number of cases and deaths is more readily available and therefore generally more up to par).

There was a discrepancy in mortality rates (with a much higher mortality rate in China) which however is not being confirmed as the sample of cases outside of China is growing in size. On the contrary, it is now higher outside of China than within.

That initial discrepancy was generally explained with a higher case detection rate outside of China especially with respect to Wuhan, where priority had to be initially placed on severe and critical cases, given the ongoing emergency.

Unreported cases would have the effect of decreasing the denominator and inflating the CFR above its real value. For example, assuming 10,000 total unreported cases in Wuhan and adding them back to the formula, we would get a CFR of 4.9% (quite different from the CFR of 6% based strictly on confirmed cases).

Neil Ferguson, a public health expert at Imperial College in the UK, said his “best guess” was that there were 100,000 affected by the virus even though there were only 2,000 confirmed cases at the time. [11]

Without going that far, the possibility of a non negligible number of unreported cases in the initial stages of the crisis should be taken into account when trying to calculate the case fatally rate.

As the days go by and the city organized its efforts and built the infrastructure, the ability to detect and confirm cases improved. As of February 3, for example, the novel coronavirus nucleic acid testing capability of Wuhan had increased to 4,196 samples per day from an initial 200 samples.[10]

A significant discrepancy in case mortality rate can also be observed when comparing mortality rates as calculated and reported by China NHC: a CFR of 3.1% in the Hubei province (where Wuhan, with the vast majority of deaths is situated), and a CFR of 0.16% in other provinces (19 times less).

Finally, we shall remember that while the 2003 SARS epidemic was still ongoing, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported a fatality rate of 4% (or as low as 3%), whereas the final case fatality rate ended up being 9.6%.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Headshot

I'm not saying that you can become reinfected by the same mutation of this virus, but there are at least two mutations (illustrated in this video) and possibly up to two dozen mutations (illustrated in another video that I posted). To most people, COVID-19 is COVID-19, but with numerous mutant forms running around the world, the possibility of reinfection with two or more types becomes very likely. With Dengue Fever, the first infection usually just makes you sick, but there are four major mutations of the Dengue Fever virus (and numerous sub-mutations), and reinfection with a second type will quite likely kill you or at least destroy your quality of life. That also happened with the Spanish Flu. The first wave didn't kill too many (though a a lot of people got very ill), but the second wave took out 50 to 100 million people around the world. Viruses mutate. They always mutate. There is no such thing as a stable virus, and anybody saying that there is would be either an optimist, an innocent (doesn't know better) or a liar.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Kahuna
13 minutes ago, Headshot said:

I'm not saying that you can become reinfected by the same mutation of this virus, but there are at least two mutations (illustrated in this video) and possibly up to two dozen mutations (illustrated in another video that I posted). To most people, COVID-19 is COVID-19, but with numerous mutant forms running around the world, the possibility of reinfection with two or more types becomes very likely. With Dengue Fever, the first infection usually just makes you sick, but there are four major mutations of the Dengue Fever virus (and numerous sub-mutations), and reinfection with a second type will quite likely kill you or at least destroy your quality of life. That also happened with the Spanish Flu. The first wave didn't kill too many (though a a lot of people got very ill), but the second wave took out 50 to 100 million people around the world. Viruses mutate. They always mutate. There is no such thing as a stable virus, and anybody saying that there is would be either an optimist, an innocent (doesn't know better) or a liar.

To which I replied

to which you replied

which isn't either a cold or a flu virus which we were talking about

and I replied

 One you have the flu or a cold you do not ever get that same cold or flu again....  I stand by that ..    I still do

Now you want to throw dengue into this too..how's HIV?  Malaria??  What other non cold/flu virus do you want to base your explanations on because I'm sticking with the cold and flu ones and I still say you never get the same one twice..  

   That's about all..  :hi:

Edited by Kahuna
spelling correction
Link to post
Share on other sites
Kahuna

https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-first-case-human-to-dog-transmission.html

Quote

Dog tests 'weak positive' for coronavirus, a 1st case of human-to-canine infection

By Nicoletta Lanese - Staff Writer 5 hours ago

However, it's highly unlikely that dogs can pass the virus on to humans.

image.png.2c0c4f82a4692e469d4642815c2b75f2.pngStock photo of a Pomeranian dog

A pet dog belonging to a woman with COVID-19 has contracted a "low-level infection" from its owner, according to news reports.

The Pomeranian first tested "weak positive" for the virus last week, according to a statement released by the Hong Kong Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department on Feb. 28. At the time, however, scientists couldn't determine whether the animal was truly infected or if it had only picked up traces of the virus from a contaminated surface. 

The dog was taken under quarantine and inspected by experts from the University of Hong Kong, City University and the World Organisation for Animal Health, who "unanimously agreed that these results suggest that the dog has a low level of infection and it is likely to be a case of human-to-animal transmission," according to the South China Morning Post.

So, should the public worry about picking up SARS-CoV-2 from their beloved pets? Experts say no. 

:scratch_head:  :unsure:

Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyMan
  • Administrator
Salty Dog
Quote

 

DHS officials fear illegal border crossings may spread coronavirus

Some 328 immigrants from China have been caught crossing the border illegally so far this year, according to Homeland Security data that raises the prospect a coronavirus carrier could sneak into the country via the U.S.-Mexico border.

Three other people from South Korea — another country with rapidly spreading cases — have also been arrested at the border, as have 122 people from the Dominican Republican, where the coronavirus has now been detected.

All told, more than 1,000 migrants a day are caught attempting to sneak in illegally from Mexico, which detected its first case last week, and since has identified five others.

And if that many are being caught each day, an unknown but significant number are getting through undetected, Border Patrol agents say.

“The journey to the U.S. border puts migrants in poor conditions,” a Homeland Security official told The Washington Times. “We don’t know if they have come into contact with someone who has the flu, there is no passport, medical history, or travel manifest.”

President Trump last week had floated the possibility of closing border crossings between the U.S. and Mexico, though this week he downplayed that option, saying he didn’t see the border as much of a vulnerability.

“We’re not seeing a lot of evidence in that area,” he said — though he added, “We’re closing it, I guess, automatically because we have a very strong border there now.”

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/mar/4/dhs-links-coronavirus-border-328-chinese-illegals-/

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrator
Salty Dog
Quote

 

...Dogs and cats can't pass coronavirus to humans

Hong Kong's Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Departments has concluded that pet cats and dogs cannot pass the new coronavirus on to humans, but they can test positive for low levels of the pathogen if they catch it from their owners. This comes after a quarantined dog tested weakly positive for the virus Feb. 27, Feb. 28 and March 2. 

Health experts in Hong Kong have agreed that the dog has a low-level of infection and it is "likely to be a case of human-to-animal transmission." The dog will be tested again before being released. The department suggested any pets, including dogs and cats, from households where someone has tested positive for the virus should be put into quarantine...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/03/05/coronavirus-live-updates-us-death-toll-schools-amtrak/4953471002/

 

 

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...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Guidelines. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..

Capture.JPG

I Understand...