Coronavirus Covid-19 - opšta tema

[Dankan Ajdaho]

10 hours ago, borris_ said:

Didier Raoult je sinoć izjavio da su uradili drugu studiju na 80 pacijenata ali opet bez kontrolne grupe (grupa koja ne prima lijek). Od tih 80 pacijenata, jedan je umro, 86 godina, drugi je i dalje u teškom stanju. Ostali su pozdravili većina poslije 8 dana a svi poslije 12 dana.

Pacijenti su imali 52.5 godina u prosjeku. 

 

Radi se o kombinaciji lijekova hidrohlorokin + antibakterijski lijek.

 

Može linak?

 

6 hours ago, Budja said:

 

A ako umre i onaj drugi koji je u teskom stanju onda samo na 2.50%.

 

Tražim linak jer sam negde pročitao da je lek efektivan ISKLJUČIVO ukoliko počne da se daje na vreme (valjda prva nedelja bolesti?). Ko završi na respiratoru nema nikakvog efekta.

[borris_]

Pokusaj ovdje, sa telefona pišem pa mobilnog

 

 

 

 

[vememah]

43 minutes ago, Gandalf said:

Coronavirus containment measures that force economies to slow down or halt may ultimately be better for economic growth than laxer efforts

Nije baš tako jednoznačan zaključak.

 

Zaključak rada:

Quote

This paper examines the impact of 1918 Flu pandemic and resulting non-pharmaceutical interventions on real economic activity. Using variation across U.S. states and cities, we deliver two key messages. First, the pandemic leads to a sharp and persistent fall in real economic activity. We find negative effects on manufacturing activity, the stock of durable goods, and bank assets, which suggests that the pandemic depresses economic activity through both supply and demand-side effects. Second, cities that implemented more rapid and forceful non-pharmaceutical health interventions do not experience worse downturns. In contrast, evidence on manufacturing activity and bank assets suggests that the economy performed better in areas with more aggressive NPIs after the pandemic.

 

Altogether, our evidence implies that pandemics are highly disruptive for economic activity. However, timely measures that can mitigate the severity of the pandemic can reduce the severity of the persistent economic downturn. That is, NPIs can reduce mortality while at the same time being economically beneficial.

 

Finally, when interpreting our findings, there several important caveats to keep in mind. First, our analysis is limited to data on 30 states and 43 to 66 cities. Second, data on manufacturing activity is not available in all years, so we cannot carefully examine pre-trends between 1914 and 1919 for the manufacturing activity outcomes. Third, the economic environment toward the end of 1918 was unusual due to the end of WWI. Fourth, while there are important economic lessons from the 1918 Flu for today’s COVID-19 pandemic, we stress the limits of external validity. Estimates suggest that 1918 Flu was more deadly than COVID-19, especially for prime-age workers, which also suggests more severe economic impacts of the 1918 Flu. The complex nature of modern global supply chains, the larger role of services, and improvements in communication technology are mechanisms we cannot capture in our analysis, but these are important factors for understanding the macroeconomic effects of COVID-19.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID3561884_code2255719.pdf?abstractid=3561560&mirid=1

Edited March 28, 2020 by vememah

[vememah]

 

Quote

 

In Wuhan, China, people with mild COVID-19 cases were taken to large facilities and not permitted to see their families. “Infected people must be isolated. That should happen everywhere,” George Gao says.

 

STR/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES

Not wearing masks to protect against coronavirus is a ‘big mistake,’ top Chinese scientist says

By Jon CohenMar. 27, 2020 , 6:15 PM

Chinese scientists at the front of that country’s outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have not been particularly accessible to foreign media. Many have been overwhelmed trying to understand their epidemic and combat it, and responding to media requests, especially from journalists outside of China, has not been a top priority.

Science has tried to interview George Gao, director-general of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), for 2 months. Last week he responded.

Gao oversees 2000 employees—one-fifth the staff size of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention—and he remains an active researcher himself. In January, he was part of a team that did the first isolation and sequencing of severe acute respiratory syndrome 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes COVID-19. He co-authored two widely read papers published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) that provided some of the first detailed epidemiology and clinical features of the disease, and has published three more papers on COVID-19 in The Lancet.

His team also provided important data to a joint commission between Chinese researchers and a team of international scientists, organized by the World Health Organization (WHO), that wrote a landmark report after touring the country to understand the response to the epidemic.

First trained as a veterinarian, Gao later earned a Ph.D. in biochemistry at the University of Oxford and did postdocs there and at Harvard University, specializing in immunology and virology. His research specializes in viruses that have fragile lipid membranes called envelopes—a group that includes SARS-CoV-2—and how they enter cells and also move between species.

Gao answered Science’s questions over several days via text, voicemails, and phone conversations. This interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.

Q: What can other countries learn from the way China has approached COVID-19?

A: Social distancing is the essential strategy for the control of any infectious diseases, especially if they are respiratory infections. First, we used “nonpharmaceutical strategies,” because you don’t have any specific inhibitors or drugs and you don’t have any vaccines. Second, you have to make sure you isolate any cases. Third, close contacts should be in quarantine: We spend a lot of time trying to find all these close contacts, and to make sure they are quarantined and isolated. Fourth, suspend public gatherings. Fifth, restrict movement, which is why you have a lockdown, the cordon sanitaire in French.

Q: The lockdown in China began on 23 January in Wuhan and was expanded to neighboring cities in Hubei province. Other provinces in China had less restrictive shutdowns. How was all of this coordinated, and how important were the “supervisors” overseeing the efforts in neighborhoods?

A: You have to have understanding and consensus. For that you need very strong leadership, at the local and national level. You need a supervisor and coordinator working with the public very closely. Supervisors need to know who the close contacts are, who the suspected cases are. The supervisors in the community must be very alert. They are key.

Q: What mistakes are other countries making?

A: The big mistake in the U.S. and Europe, in my opinion, is that people aren’t wearing masks. This virus is transmitted by droplets and close contact. Droplets play a very important role—you’ve got to wear a mask, because when you speak, there are always droplets coming out of your mouth. Many people have asymptomatic or presymptomatic infections. If they are wearing face masks, it can prevent droplets that carry the virus from escaping and infecting others.

Q: What about other control measures? China has made aggressive use of thermometers at the entrances to stores, buildings, and public transportation stations, for instance.

A: Yes. Anywhere you go inside in China, there are thermometers. You have to try to take people’s temperatures as often as you can to make sure that whoever has a high fever stays out.

And a really important outstanding question is how stable this virus is in the environment. Because it’s an enveloped virus, people think it’s fragile and particularly sensitive to surface temperature or humidity. But from both U.S. results and Chinese studies, it looks like it’s very resistant to destruction on some surfaces. It may be able to survive in many environments. We need to have science-based answers here.

Q: People who tested positive in Wuhan but only had mild disease were sent into isolation in large facilities and were not allowed to have visits from family. Is this something other countries should consider?

A: Infected people must be isolated. That should happen everywhere. You can only control COVID-19 if you can remove the source of the infection. This is why we built module hospitals and transformed stadiums into hospitals.

Q: There are many questions about the origin of the outbreak in China. Chinese researchers have reported that the earliest case dates back to 1 December 2019. What do you think of the report in the South China Morning Post that says data from the Chinese government show there were cases in November 2019, with the first one on 17 November?

A: There is no solid evidence to say we already had clusters in November. We are trying to better understand the origin.

Q: Wuhan health officials linked a large cluster of cases to the Huanan seafood market and closed it on 1 January. The assumption was that a virus had jumped to humans from an animal sold and possibly butchered at the market. But in your paper in NEJM, which included a retrospective look for cases, you reported that four of the five earliest infected people had no links to the seafood market. Do you think the seafood market was a likely place of origin, or is it a distraction—an amplifying factor but not the original source?

A: That’s a very good question. You are working like a detective. From the very beginning, everybody thought the origin was the market. Now, I think the market could be the initial place, or it could be a place where the virus was amplified. So that’s a scientific question. There are two possibilities.

Q: China was also criticized for not sharing the viral sequence immediately. The story about a new coronavirus came out in The Wall Street Journal on 8 January; it didn’t come from Chinese government scientists. Why not?

A: That was a very good guess from The Wall Street Journal. WHO was informed about the sequence, and I think the time between the article appearing and the official sharing of the sequence was maybe a few hours. I don’t think it’s more than a day.

Q: But a public database of viral sequences later showed that the first one was submitted by Chinese researchers on 5 January. So there were at least 3 days that you must have known that there was a new coronavirus. It’s not going to change the course of the epidemic now, but to be honest, something happened about reporting the sequence publicly.

A: I don’t think so. We shared the information with scientific colleagues promptly, but this involved public health and we had to wait for policymakers to announce it publicly. You don’t want the public to panic, right? And no one in any country could have predicted that the virus would cause a pandemic. This is the first noninfluenza pandemic ever.

Q: It wasn’t until 20 January that Chinese scientists officially said there was clear evidence of human-to-human transmission. Why do you think epidemiologists in China had so much difficulty seeing that it was occurring?

A: Detailed epidemiological data were not available yet. And we were facing a very crazy and concealed virus from the very beginning. The same is true in Italy, elsewhere in Europe, and the United States: From the very beginning scientists, everybody thought: “Well, it’s just a virus.”

Q: Spread in China has dwindled to a crawl, and the new confirmed cases are mainly people entering the country, correct?

A: Yes. At the moment, we don’t have any local transmission, but the problem for China now is the imported cases. So many infected travelers are coming into China.

Q: But what will happen when China returns to normal? Do you think enough people have become infected so that herd immunity will keep the virus at bay?

A: We definitely don’t have herd immunity yet. But we are waiting for more definitive results from antibody tests that can tell us how many people really have been infected.

Q: So what is the strategy now? Buying time to find effective medicines?

A: Yes—our scientists are working on both vaccines and drugs.

Q: Many scientists consider remdesivir to be the most promising drug now being tested. When do you think clinical trials in China of the drug will have data?

A: In April.

Q: Have Chinese scientists developed animal models that you think are robust enough to study pathogenesis and test drugs and vaccines?

A: At the moment, we are using both monkeys and transgenic mice that have ACE2, the human receptor for the virus. The mouse model is widely used in China for drug and vaccine assessment, and I think there are at least a couple papers coming out about the monkey models soon. I can tell you that our monkey model works.

Q: What do you think of President Donald Trump referring to the new coronavirus as the “China virus” or the “Chinese virus”?

A: It’s definitely not good to call it the Chinese virus. The virus belongs to the Earth. The virus is our common enemy—not the enemy of any person or country.

 

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/03/not-wearing-masks-protect-against-coronavirus-big-mistake-top-chinese-scientist-says

Edited March 29, 2020 by vememah

[borris_]

Mislim da bi i ovdje dali maske da ih ima dovoljno. Problem je što ih nema.

[napadaj]

https://www.rt.com/russia/484364-russian-drug-treatment-covid19/

 

The Russian pharmacists also believe in the effectiveness of malaria medication against the virus, but suggested that another drug — Mefloquine — should be employed. They said their treatment was developed taking Chinese and French experience into account.

 

The drug, which has been around since the 1970s, blocks the degenerative effect Covid-19 has on cells and doesn’t allow the virus to replicate further, the Russian Federal Medical-Biological Agency (FMBA) said in a statement. They added that Mefloquine’s immuno-suppressive effect prevents the inflammatory response caused by the disease.

 

The Russian medics have been working on “an effective and safe scheme to prevent coronavirus infection on the basis of mefloquine, which not only would overcome the peak of incidence but would also effectively control it in the future,” the FMBA said.

 

There have been 228 new coronavirus cases registered in Russia in the last 24 hours, bringing the overall number of infected to 1,264. Up to seven people, who had tested positive for Covid-19, have died.

[Anonymous]

Kinez kaže (kao i ostali) da je maska korisna za već zaražene. Ali sad smo već u fazi kad svako može biti u fazi inkubacije, tako da je u pravu.

 

Zato me i nerviraju oni što smaraju kasirke i ostale po samoposlugama, kupi šta treba, plati i ne prosipaj mudrosti.

[kud u maglu Simoviću]

14 minutes ago, borris_ said:

Mislim da bi i ovdje dali maske da ih ima dovoljno. Problem je što ih nema.

negde sam pročitao da fra “troši” 40mil maski nedeljno, a proizvodi 8mil, a u međuvremenu naručili 1milijardu od kineza

[borris_]

Troši 24mil, tako sam ja čuo. To je samo za bolnice i apotekama i bolesne.

[Gandalf]

32 minutes ago, vememah said:

Nije baš tako jednoznačan zaključak.

prvo masnim slovima je prilično nedvosmislen zaključak da je grip hebao kevu svima, ali su bolje (ili manje loše) prošli oni koji su preduzimali oštrije mere kontrole.

 

drugo masnim slovima je standardno pitanje koliko su dati rezultati primenljivi u barem za nijansu drugačijim okolnostima (aka external validity).

Edited March 29, 2020 by Gandalf

[kud u maglu Simoviću]

ovo je navodno izjavio olivije veran min zdravlja

 

neverovatne cifre su u pitanju, a jedan od krucijalnih problema što je gro proizvodnje medicinske opreme made in china. od maski do respiratora, al to je već za topik svet posle korone

 

e

8mil bi mogla da proizvede

Edited March 29, 2020 by kud u maglu Simoviću

[NevenMan]

https://www.kron4.com/news/shocking-new-charts-project-us-coronavirus-cases-deaths-by-state/

[Dankan Ajdaho]

 https://www.index.hr/vijesti/clanak/vodeci-kineski-strucnjak-za-koronu-rekao-u-cemu-po-njemu-najvise-grijese-europa-i-sad/2170029.aspx

 

Quote

"Velika greška SAD-a i Europe je da ljudi ne nose maske"

 

"Po mom mišljenju, velika greška SAD-a i Europe jest da ljudi ne nose maske. Ovaj virus prenosi se kapljicama i bliskim kontaktom. Kapljice igraju vrlo važnu ulogu - morate nositi masku, jer kad govorite, uvijek iz usta izlaze kapljice. Mnogi ljudi imaju asimptomatske ili predsimptomatske infekcije. Ako nose maske za lice, to može spriječiti da kapljice koje nose virus pobjegnu i zaraze druge", rekao je.

 

[Peter Fan]

3 hours ago, NevenMan said:

Prognoza za USA je 80 000 :/ 

 

 

https://www.kron4.com/news/shocking-new-charts-project-us-coronavirus-cases-deaths-by-state/

Intersantno, hvala za link.

Zanimljiva su poredjenja procjena u odnosu na resapolozive resurse.  Po ovome, drzave koje su relativno rano (u odnosu na broj zarazenih) uvele ostrije restrikcije okupljanja proci ce manje-vise OK. Sjecam se da je Ohio uveo "shelter in place" dok su jos imali 30-ak slucajeva I trebali da ispeglaju krivu dobrano ispode kapaciteta. Slicno I Wisconsin. Illinois je malo iznad, docim je NY najebo. Na vrhuncu epidemije odnos potrebe:kapaciteti = 5.

[Redoran]

7 hours ago, čekmeže said:

Hvala kolega,

poenta je u tome da nije cela Kina bila u 24/7 karantinu, te ga je bilo moguće logistički odraditi za određenu teritoriju. Mi bi mogli tako da zatvorimo neki manji grad i spolja organizuješ dotur hrane vode lekova i ostalih minimalnih potrepština. Da zatvorimo celu državu i svima to obezbedimo mi jednostavno ne možemo.

 

Poenta je takođe u tome da niko izvan Kine nije pokušao da stavi makar deo države u 24/7 karantin. Pođi od Italije koja je prešišala Kinu po svim parametrima i čak ni danas im ne pada na pamet da Lombardiju stave pod vuhanski^tm režim. Nakon što su im krenule stotine mrtvih, komercijalni letovi su uredno nastavljeni nekih desetak dana, da se virus što bolje raširi po celoj Evropi. Da su odmah i kompletno izolovali celu regiju, sada bi imali manji problem i kriva bi im već bila zaravnjena.

 

Španci su takođe morali izolovati Madrid. Na kraju krajeva, Kina je stavila Vuhan (a zatim i Hubei) u strogi 24/7 karantin nakon nekoliko stotina zaraženih i nekoliko desetina umrlih. Evropa i Amerika su na tom broju opušteno priređivali fudbalske utakmice, ulične karnevale i masovne političke skupove. A kada je đavo odneo šalu pa je ostao samo karantin kao opcija. odlučili su da ga uvode mic po mic i sve polagano, nadajući se nekom čudu sa nebesa koje će im omogućiti da poštede ekonomiju. Na kraju će svojoj ekonomiji naneti isti udarac kao i Kinezi svojoj, ako ne veći, i samo će bez potrebe produžiti agoniju do neizbežnog.