03-05-2020, 02:26 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-05-2020, 02:38 PM by BostonCard.)
(03-05-2020, 12:48 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: There is now community spread in San Francisco. Two cases confirmed today with no connection to any known infected person and no travel to high infection areas. A 90 yo man and a 40 yo woman, not related in any way.
Just hope the heath care workers have proper protection, not just for themselves, but how easily they can infect others.
I find it absurd that any health care professional wouldn't be alarmed by what is happening. It's not the case fatality rate (with proper care) that is the concern. It's the potential of overrunning hospitals with sick people needing significant medical intervention. I read yesterday people are on waiting lists for hospital beds in South Korea. How many are gonna die who would have been saved if not for inundated hospitals?
This is why taking drastic measures to stop spread even when it doesn't appear the outbreak is that big, makes sense.
One of my colleagues is a former ER physician, and occasionally still works shifts when needed. He was asked to fill in for former colleague who treated a patient that was diagnosed with Covid-19. His colleague was placed on a 14-day quarentine. So, yes, there is awareness about the potential for infecting others.
Of course, as the disease spreads, and more physicians come in contact with patients with Covid-19, you aren't going to be able to be so picky, or the entire healthcare staff will be on quarentine (then again, once the virus becomes widespread, the added benefit of shutting down this particular mode of transmission is a bit moot). The crap will hit the fan once a substantial number of nurses, physicians, and other healthcare staff become infected. What if you don't have enough nurses to run the hospital?
BC
(03-05-2020, 01:39 PM)burger Wrote: Interesting post on a virology forum (though posted by a virus scientist/statistician): it sounds like the paper reporting that there are two strains of the virus jumped to conclusions not supported by evidence:
Quote:However, they further claim that these two types have differing transmission rates: “Thus far, we found that, although the L type is derived from the S type, L (~70%) is more prevalent than S (~30%) among the sequenced SARS-CoV-2 genomes we examined. This pattern suggests that L has a higher transmission rate than the S type.” The abstract of the paper goes even further, stating outright that: “the S type, which is evolutionarily older and less aggressive…”
It is, however, important to appreciate that finding a majority of samples with a particular mutation is not evidence that viruses with that mutation transmit more readily. To make this claim would, at very minimum, require a comparison to be made to expectations under a null distribution assuming equal transmission rates. As this has not been performed by the authors, I believe there is insufficient evidence to make this suggestion, and that it is incorrect (and irresponsible) to state that there is any difference in transmission rates. Differences in the observed numbers of samples with and without this mutation are far more likely to be due to stochastic epidemiological effects.
tldr: there is no evidence for aggressive/non-aggressive strains
http://virological.org/t/response-to-on-...-cov-2/418
Note, generally speaking as infectious agents mutate, they tend to increase their ease of transmission (natural selection; easier to transmit viruses get transmitted more), and decrease their virulence and mortality (because dead people can't transmit the virus).
BC


