Generic Virus Thread

[HanoiVillan]

The Austrian health agency, AGES, has done some sterling work tracing the transmission chains of more than 3,800 infected people. The article about it is in German, so these extracts suffer from Google Translate, but they're not too bad:

Where the Austrians are infected with the corona virus

'After the AGES epidemiologists were able to demonstrate in early April that more than half of the early cases could be traced back to Ischgl , and the Tyrolean ski areas with Paznaun and Arlberg generally play a special role in the spread of Covid 19 in Austria , the agency has now published further information on the distribution channels. What is striking: In addition to infections in leisure activities and in the own family, many of the traced infections happened in retirement and nursing homes.

By May 5, 3,822 of the over 15,500 sufferers could be assigned to one of 169 clusters . According to the current state of knowledge, there is an easy all-clear for using public transport and visiting shops such as supermarkets. After comparing the infected groups, it was not possible to document a single infection chain that was caused by infection in public transport or in trade, AGES told futurezone.'

This doesn't mean that there is no infection on public transport or in supermarkets - after all, they have only traced a fifth of the cases - but that they seem to have a tiny role at best in spreading the virus, which is probably to do with the proximity the Austrians believe you need to someone infected:

'There was direct contact between people in each of the chains of infection checked . The main transmission path was droplet transmission. Washing hands, but also physical distance from other people remains indispensable to prevent the spread.

As infectious as the virus is, it cannot normally be snapped up when an infected person passes by or by brief contact while shopping. So you have to be exposed to a virus carrier for at least 15 minutes with a short distance of less than one to two meters. It does not matter whether the contact took place for a quarter of an hour in a row or 3 times 5 minutes.'

The two situations that lead to the most transmission, as we would probably all expect at this point, are in old people's homes and at home:

'The situation is different in retirement, old people's and nursing homes. For example, 1,127 cases (29.5 percent) of infections in homes were traced. In addition to the residents, this also includes nursing staff and subsequent cases in their household. Since the infection cannot always be clearly defined, infections are also recorded in clusters with several parameters. In addition to the group mentioned above, there are 199 cases in which leisure activities played a role in addition to the home situation.

Unsurprisingly, many contagions have so far occurred among friends and family. For example, AGES lists 1,075 cases (28.1 percent) under the cluster category "Leisure activity and household". This means that people got infected while skiing and brought the virus into the household. Decided only by leisure activities such as skiing, choir attendance and fitness center, almost ten percent of the cases followed were infected. With 280 people or 7.3 percent, the infection was directly attributable to their own family or friends.'

more on link: https://futurezone.at/science/wo-sich-die-oesterreicher-mit-dem-corona-virus-infizieren/400829822

This gets me thinking: what do skiing, choir and the gym all have in common? And one answer that seems to leap out is 'vigorously expelling air from the lungs'. I have seen this idea elsewhere, and it intuitively makes a lot of sense (which of course doesn't mean it's right, or the whole story). However, if it were right, it would suggest that football matches with fans in attendance would be one of the last things that could be restarted, whereas cinemas - at low capacity and with sufficient distance between customers - might be something that could be restarted earlier.

[terrytini]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

The Austrian health agency, AGES, has done some sterling work tracing the transmission chains of more than 3,800 infected people. The article about it is in German, so these extracts suffer from Google Translate, but they're not too bad:

Where the Austrians are infected with the corona virus

'After the AGES epidemiologists were able to demonstrate in early April that more than half of the early cases could be traced back to Ischgl , and the Tyrolean ski areas with Paznaun and Arlberg generally play a special role in the spread of Covid 19 in Austria , the agency has now published further information on the distribution channels. What is striking: In addition to infections in leisure activities and in the own family, many of the traced infections happened in retirement and nursing homes.

By May 5, 3,822 of the over 15,500 sufferers could be assigned to one of 169 clusters . According to the current state of knowledge, there is an easy all-clear for using public transport and visiting shops such as supermarkets. After comparing the infected groups, it was not possible to document a single infection chain that was caused by infection in public transport or in trade, AGES told futurezone.'

This doesn't mean that there is no infection on public transport or in supermarkets - after all, they have only traced a fifth of the cases - but that they seem to have a tiny role at best in spreading the virus, which is probably to do with the proximity the Austrians believe you need to someone infected:

'There was direct contact between people in each of the chains of infection checked . The main transmission path was droplet transmission. Washing hands, but also physical distance from other people remains indispensable to prevent the spread.

As infectious as the virus is, it cannot normally be snapped up when an infected person passes by or by brief contact while shopping. So you have to be exposed to a virus carrier for at least 15 minutes with a short distance of less than one to two meters. It does not matter whether the contact took place for a quarter of an hour in a row or 3 times 5 minutes.'

The two situations that lead to the most transmission, as we would probably all expect at this point, are in old people's homes and at home:

'The situation is different in retirement, old people's and nursing homes. For example, 1,127 cases (29.5 percent) of infections in homes were traced. In addition to the residents, this also includes nursing staff and subsequent cases in their household. Since the infection cannot always be clearly defined, infections are also recorded in clusters with several parameters. In addition to the group mentioned above, there are 199 cases in which leisure activities played a role in addition to the home situation.

Unsurprisingly, many contagions have so far occurred among friends and family. For example, AGES lists 1,075 cases (28.1 percent) under the cluster category "Leisure activity and household". This means that people got infected while skiing and brought the virus into the household. Decided only by leisure activities such as skiing, choir attendance and fitness center, almost ten percent of the cases followed were infected. With 280 people or 7.3 percent, the infection was directly attributable to their own family or friends.'

more on link: https://futurezone.at/science/wo-sich-die-oesterreicher-mit-dem-corona-virus-infizieren/400829822

This gets me thinking: what do skiing, choir and the gym all have in common? And one answer that seems to leap out is 'vigorously expelling air from the lungs'. I have seen this idea elsewhere, and it intuitively makes a lot of sense (which of course doesn't mean it's right, or the whole story). However, if it were right, it would suggest that football matches with fans in attendance would be one of the last things that could be restarted, whereas cinemas - at low capacity and with sufficient distance between customers - might be something that could be restarted earlier.

Very interesting.

“direct contact between people

It’s not the first time I’ve seen this expression but haven’t been able to ascertain exactly what it means. Any ideas ?

I mean, one might expect it to mean actual physical contact, but clearly it doesn’t.

“have to be exposed to a virus carrier for at least 15 minutes”

 

This is another phrase I’ve seen a few times and struggle with. 

Firstly,  “exposed to” and “ direct contact” are both unclear, and not, one would think, synonymous.

Then there is the shop oddity. On the one hand this and other evidence suggests shops may not be particularly risky....yet it would be very easy to be in the same shop as one or more carriers for longer than 15 minutes.

And...both of the above, and the general tenor of the Article, imply that “lingering” particles pose little risk......yet it’s not clear why this would be.

One of the reasons it’s unclear is because from everything I’ve read so far, there is little explanation behind any findings.

Why should the amount of time ( and to a lesser extent distance) play such a role ? ....my layman’s brain says - presumably - there is a given quantity of infectious material given out by a person in a given period, and that you need to acquire a certain amount in order to be infected......but that begs the question....what happens if you get less than that ? And what’s the difference between collecting that amount from a person coughing ( for example) at you, and that same person coughing tha5 same amount on a surface in a shop that you then touch ?

And so on. There’s a lot more I don’t follow !

 

[terrytini]

And what about getting 5 minutes off one infected person, and five off another then another ? Does that still equal 15 ?

My brain hurts !

[terrytini]

1 hour ago, Jareth said:

Watched Rhod Gilbert tonight being a (pre Covid) carer. It is all that matters and please forward this carer's poem on exponentionally.  

 

That poem is a wonderful tribute.

You have to be a very particular type of character to work in Care and enjoy it. People that do it establish special relationships with their clients/ residents who are often at their most vulnerable, and often in their twilight days. And they establish those relationships in the full knowledge that, often, they will be short term, and culminate in that person dying. And because they care for tha5 person, and because they are aware how important they are to that person, they grieve every time this happens.

Then, they “ get the room ready”, welcome a new guest/ visit a new home, and do it all again.

They are used to it. I can’t begin to fathom it, and have the utmost admiration and respect for them.

But they aren’t used to this. This is killing our Carers mentally and spiritually, as well as, of course, literally. They are watching helplessly ( yet feeling complicit, and guilty !!) as one by one these people they care for are dying, or getting seriously ill. (And as they and their colleagues are dying and getting ill).

Imagine doing a job like that, for the reasons they do it, and witnessing that.
Its Heartbreaking, scandalous, unforgivable. 
 

And those of us that know people in those jobs are seeing at first hand what it’s doing to them. It will scar them for life.

I don’t  know what point I’m trying to make.

[terrytini]

Thailand. Population 70,000,000. Deaths...55.

Wyre Forest. Population 100,000. Deaths ....64.

I can see why Johnson isn’t keen on making international comparisons.

[VILLAMARV]

Quote

I don’t know what point I’m trying to make.

Maybe not, but It's a good one, full of empathy for people who do a rather thankless job and mostly for scant financial reward. And who, before all this started, an awful lot of people paid little mind to.

It's easy to see and imagine how we've commoditised human beings in privately run prisons and in immigration centres with the rise of the 'service provider' in common parlance. That we do it to the elderly and disabled is frankly as scandalous as any of the other areas where people are the product. 

I have sympathy for those decent people caught up in a rotten system. And I include councils in that. The area I grew up in has been in turmoil for years as ever increasing numbers of people were farmed out to the ward of councils in homes, institutions and the wider community. I know people who have suffered mental breakdowns as they attempted to be a cog in a system that dubs human beings as 'service users'. That area is Powys, where, rather publicly the race to the bottom led to service providers making lower and lower bids for contracts without understanding their responsibilities or the disjointed and complicated nature of the care provision they were tendering for. Companies collapsed leaving no one visiting some of the most vulnerable in our society and those that were visited were often done so by people with strict time limits that meant their care was sub standard. On top of that there are also horrific stories of abuse that surface from time to time. However, amongst all that, the vast majority of people both working in and relying on this sector are damn fine people who should have the respect of the society they serve and have served. We all know however this is hardly the case. 

If only we could learn to value more than the bottom line, targets and efficiency. I hope, if nothing else, this awful pandemic provides the kick up the arse our society has needed to actually care about any of these issues past the next news headline or political speech while we carry on, undeterred, farming more and more of what used to be healthcare into the private sector. It was a national disgrace before this happened. If we go back to ignoring these issues while we go back to working to prop up a system that values the weakest so little, having been made aware of the situation all too well, then we will all be complicit. Tacet approval requires us to stay silent. We can't say or pretend we don't know anymore.

Whatever happened to the principles of no man (or woman) left behind?

Edited May 7, 2020 by VILLAMARV
Added quote box so it made sense

[maqroll]

I feel terrible for all the people out there who were right on the cusp of a major achievement in sports or anything else, especially in the amateur ranks. Imagine working to be in peak shape and this calamity rings down on you.

[LondonLax]

3 hours ago, terrytini said:

Very interesting.

“direct contact between people

It’s not the first time I’ve seen this expression but haven’t been able to ascertain exactly what it means. Any ideas ?

I mean, one might expect it to mean actual physical contact, but clearly it doesn’t.

“have to be exposed to a virus carrier for at least 15 minutes”

 

This is another phrase I’ve seen a few times and struggle with. 

Firstly,  “exposed to” and “ direct contact” are both unclear, and not, one would think, synonymous.

Then there is the shop oddity. On the one hand this and other evidence suggests shops may not be particularly risky....yet it would be very easy to be in the same shop as one or more carriers for longer than 15 minutes.

And...both of the above, and the general tenor of the Article, imply that “lingering” particles pose little risk......yet it’s not clear why this would be.

One of the reasons it’s unclear is because from everything I’ve read so far, there is little explanation behind any findings.

Why should the amount of time ( and to a lesser extent distance) play such a role ? ....my layman’s brain says - presumably - there is a given quantity of infectious material given out by a person in a given period, and that you need to acquire a certain amount in order to be infected......but that begs the question....what happens if you get less than that ? And what’s the difference between collecting that amount from a person coughing ( for example) at you, and that same person coughing tha5 same amount on a surface in a shop that you then touch ?

And so on. There’s a lot more I don’t follow !

 

I think it just a way of quantifying how contagious it is. i.e. it’s contagious but not like it’s instantly contagious with an infected person spreading to everyone they touch/pass by. 

Most infections occur by transmissions in the home, which seems obvious. 

[Genie]

1 hour ago, maqroll said:

I feel terrible for all the people out there who were right on the cusp of a major achievement in sports or anything else, especially in the amateur ranks. Imagine working to be in peak shape and this calamity rings down on you.

I’d lost 11 pounds in project summer holiday slim down. I’m too scared to check the scales now following project isolation insulation   

[Phil Silvers]

1 hour ago, maqroll said:

I feel terrible for all the people out there who were right on the cusp of a major achievement in sports or anything else, especially in the amateur ranks. Imagine working to be in peak shape and this calamity rings down on you.

Could be worse.

[maqroll]

49 minutes ago, Phil Silvers said:

Could be worse.

no shit huh

[Genie]

8 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

I’m lost on what your point is sorry.

The obsession with the 100k a day target, and it being the big headline on sites like BBC. Enough people to fill a couple of Boeing 747’s die again in 1 day, UK first country outside of the US to break 30,000 deaths, the PPE situation, the empty Nightingale hospitals, care home scandal, the shady behaviour of the people in charge, Boris doing his daily disappearing act, but it’s testing figure that people are fixated on. If demand was outstripping the capacity the government had put put in then fair enough, but the capacity is in place.  Only 70k people turned up wanting a test. Fine. 

 

 

[wazzap24]

9 hours ago, VILLAMARV said:

Have I missed something?

Population density as in the number of people in a given area, and population density as in a lot of our population is dense (thick as mince) 

[blandy]

10 hours ago, VILLAMARV said:

You're fine with the independent article, and you're entitled to be if you want. I wasn't aware it was suggesting it's own clickbait headline was ludicrous. 

Breitbart is also a thing. It's a free world right?

This subject started when @HanoiVillan posted the article and said it made him genuinely angry and that he had steam coming out of his ears.  My view is that indie and guardian readers are deemed by those papers to have sufficient intelligence to spot when an actor says something dim. That their readers don’t need a “won’t someone think of the children” level of nannying. It’s certainly not something that makes me angry, but we each have different triggers.
Breitbart on the other hand deems its readers have insufficient intelligence to spot they’re being fed a load of manure.

 

[Genie]

Someone just shared this on FB.

Some people have Covid on their death certificates but were not tested, Is that right?

[Genie]

That was a bit of a farce all round then...

Quote

Some 400,000 surgical gowns ordered from Turkey do not meet British safety standards, the UK government has said.

Up to half of the personal protective equipment (PPE) order was flown to the UK by the RAF last month, but has not been given to NHS workers and is now stuck in a warehouse.

It is not clear if the government will seek a refund from the suppliers.

The Department of Health said it was working "night and day to source PPE".

If we cascaded the spec and they didn’t meet it then it’s a fairly clear refund situation. Doubt we’ll get the money for the special RAF plane.

BBC - more on the link

[HanoiVillan]

52 minutes ago, Genie said:

The obsession with the 100k a day target, and it being the big headline on sites like BBC. Enough people to fill a couple of Boeing 747’s die again in 1 day, UK first country outside of the US to break 30,000 deaths, the PPE situation, the empty Nightingale hospitals, care home scandal, the shady behaviour of the people in charge, Boris doing his daily disappearing act, but it’s testing figure that people are fixated on. If demand was outstripping the capacity the government had put put in then fair enough, but the capacity is in place.  Only 70k people turned up wanting a test. Fine.

I agree with most of your points here, but on testing capacity, it's worth noting that a] testing sites are not easy to access for a lot of the eligible (they may live far away, be too tired after shifts, or not have a car), and b] it's illegal for the vast majority of the population to attempt to access a test. I think the claim that demand is not outstripping capacity needs to be quite heavily caveated.

[Stevo985]

47 minutes ago, Genie said:

Someone just shared this on FB.

Some people have Covid on their death certificates but were not tested, Is that right?

Probably. Testing hasn’t been rolled out to enough people for everyone to get it. 
 

I assume if somebody in a care home dies and has all the symptoms of Covid then a doctor or coroner or whatever will make a judgement that they’ve died from the disease. 
 

I don’t think that makes it fraud. 

[LondonLax]

1 hour ago, Genie said:

The obsession with the 100k a day target, and it being the big headline on sites like BBC. Enough people to fill a couple of Boeing 747’s die again in 1 day, UK first country outside of the US to break 30,000 deaths, the PPE situation, the empty Nightingale hospitals, care home scandal, the shady behaviour of the people in charge, Boris doing his daily disappearing act, but it’s testing figure that people are fixated on. If demand was outstripping the capacity the government had put put in then fair enough, but the capacity is in place.  Only 70k people turned up wanting a test. Fine. 

 

 

Countries who have handled this well have been proactive in finding people to test. They use a process called ‘contact tracing‘ where by anytime a person tests positive they ask the person about everyone they came in contact with in the previous 2 weeks, then they go out and track down and test all those people to determine if any of those people test positive. If any do they isolate them as well and then ask those people who they came in contact with, track the next batch of people down and test/isolate them and so on and so on.

It’s easy to see how you would churn through more than 100,000 tests a day if the UK was doing something like this. 

[Genie]

1 minute ago, Stevo985 said:

Probably. Testing hasn’t been rolled out to enough people for everyone to get it. 
 

I assume if somebody in a care home dies and has all the symptoms of Covid then a doctor or coroner or whatever will make a judgement that they’ve died from the disease. 
 

I don’t think that makes it fraud. 

Yeah, I certainly don’t agree with the fraud angle whoever posted was going after.