NON_POLITICAL China Coronavirus THREAD

[Muse]

Beckman Coulter just had an antibody test approved with a reported >99% specificity, so at least that test could cut down on the false positives.

OK, new to specificity... this means that if the test says you are not positive for AB you are 99+% sure to not have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2?

 

[Brainonska511]

OK, new to specificity... this means that if the test says you are not positive for AB you are 99+% sure to not have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2?

All these tests have two numbers associated: sensitivity and specificity. Sensitivity is a measure of the true positive rate and specificity is a measure of the true negative rate.

So if you were never exposed to the virus, a specificity of 95% means a 5% chance that the test returns a false positive (test says you had it when you really didn't). Obviously, that then becomes a big problem with interpreting results for a population if the overall prevalence was relatively low, since the number of false positives will rival the number of true positives.

 

[gill77]

Anyone else having dreams about not being masked up in public?

 

[brianmanahan]

Anyone else having dreams about not being masked up in public?

uhh can't say that i have

 

[Red Squirrel]

Lol news is a little behind I think. News is playing on TV and there's a new "study" saying that it's now airborne. Yeah, we knew this like 3+ months ago. If it was not airborne you would not be able to catch it from someone that has no symptoms. Just being close to someone that has it for long enough means you can get it which is the whole idea behind social distancing. So it only makes sense that it's airborne. When they breathe some of the virus is also released and floats in the air for a while. So even without coughing or sneezing etc it can still get released.

 

[K1052]

Regeneron's antibody trial moving along.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1280129867720339458

 

[CZroe]

Lol news is a little behind I think. News is playing on TV and there's a new "study" saying that it's now airborne. Yeah, we knew this like 3+ months ago. If it was not airborne you would not be able to catch it from someone that has no symptoms. Just being close to someone that has it for long enough means you can get it which is the whole idea behind social distancing. So it only makes sense that it's airborne. When they breathe some of the virus is also released and floats in the air for a while. So even without coughing or sneezing etc it can still get released.

"Airborne" has a specific medical definition that does not include suspended droplets that spend some time in the air. What you heard before was people using the word colloquially to refer to droplet transmission while experts expressed doubt that it was also "airborne" according to the medical definition. I strongly suspected it seeing how it spread through the people quarantined on the diamond princess cruise ship but that isn't how medical research works.

Pretty sure this video about the difference was shared here 4 months ago:

 

[Roger Wilco]

Per the CDC

"Mortality attributed to COVID-19 decreased compared to last week and is currently at the epidemic threshold but will likely increase as additional death certificates are processed."

Covid-19 may lose its official epidemic status in the United States, but I think it's pretty obvious that it will be short-lived.

New cases and new deaths currently have an inverse relationship, and IMO, that will precede massive waves of death in the near future.

 

[CZroe]

Per the CDC

"Mortality attributed to COVID-19 decreased compared to last week and is currently at the epidemic threshold but will likely increase as additional death certificates are processed."

Covid-19 may lose its official epidemic status in the United States, but I think it's pretty obvious that it will be short-lived.

New cases and new deaths currently have an inverse relationship, and IMO, that will precede massive waves of death in the near future.

I think the threshold is between epidemic and pandemic, though I never really thought mortality was a factor in distinguishing those.

 

[Red Squirrel]

"Airborne" has a specific medical definition that does not include suspended droplets that spend some time in the air. What you heard before was people using the word colloquially to refer to droplet transmission while experts expressed doubt that it was also "airborne" according to the medical definition. I strongly suspected it seeing how it spread through the people quarantined on the diamond princess cruise ship but that isn't how medical research works.

Pretty sure this video about the difference was shared here 4 months ago:

Yeah I get that, but the fact that people with no symptoms can still transmit it kinda proves that it is airborne even in non droplet way. Droplets require someone to cough or sneeze etc. I guess talking too maybe?

 

[K1052]

Given the comprehensive failure of the US to contain or even supress the virus I have no idea how anybody thinks a pro sports season this year is actually practical

https://twitter.com/x/status/1280136885784981506

 

[CZroe]

Yeah I get that, but the fact that people with no symptoms can still transmit it kinda proves that it is airborne even in non droplet way. Droplets require someone to cough or sneeze etc. I guess talking too maybe?

You are right that symptomatic people generally spread respiratory illnesses faster because the virus takes advantage of the symptoms to spread... but talking creates droplets too.

Measles is an airborne infection with an incredibly high r0. We're lucky this isn't as serious as measles for most people and seems to have a lower r0 than measles would in an unvaccinated population with no existing immunity.

 

[K1052]

You are right that symptomatic people generally spread respiratory illnesses faster because the virus takes advantage of the symptoms to spread... but talking creates droplets too.

There was a big outbreak in a SK call center that had people jammed in on each other in one room but few cases in the rest of the building. It's quite evident that making noise/heavy breathing from exertion produces a lot more droplets of all sizes some of which will linger in the air longer especially in a poorly vented space. Couple that with a crowded environment and you get super spreading events.

Japan largely seems to have figured out how to cripple viral spread just though simple mask wearing and clear social interaction modifications:

 

[KMFJD]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1279960021825130502

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ , by not doing anything?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1279960021825130502

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ , by not doing anything?

'We've done nothing and we're out of ideas!'

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Yeah I get that, but the fact that people with no symptoms can still transmit it kinda proves that it is airborne even in non droplet way. Droplets require someone to cough or sneeze etc. I guess talking too maybe?

Yes, talking seems to spread just fine, even breathing. I think it's just a terminology conflict between the common knowledge word 'airborne' (it floats in the air) vs medical terminology. For all intents and purposes, if you're around a living infected person for too long, you're probably going to get it.

Doesn't help that it appears to be shockingly virulent, like basically everyone in relatively close proximity to someone infected seems to invariably get infected.

 

[Muse]

Anyone else having dreams about not being masked up in public?

Not yet AFAIK, but I have been having some very interesting dreams. I've been SIP alone in my house, so no close contact since middle March. I've had quite a few dreams in which there's close contact with lots of people! 😀 Yes, some sexy ones too.

 

[Muse]

All these tests have two numbers associated: sensitivity and specificity. Sensitivity is a measure of the true positive rate and specificity is a measure of the true negative rate.

So if you were never exposed to the virus, a specificity of 95% means a 5% chance that the test returns a false positive (test says you had it when you really didn't). Obviously, that then becomes a big problem with interpreting results for a population if the overall prevalence was relatively low, since the number of false positives will rival the number of true positives.

Thanks. Now, what exactly does sensitivity translate to?

 

[Brainonska511]

Thanks. Now, what exactly does sensitivity translate to?

Sensitivity is just the true positive rate - someone had it and it was properly detected as a positive result.

A bad sensitivity rate will mean high false negatives (people that were positive but reported negative)

 

[thestrangebrew1]

Coworker had lunch last Tuesday with a friend, hung out with said friend on Wednesday and found out said friend hung out with someone else over the weekend who tested positive. Coworker's friend got tested, and he ended up positive. My coworker is not showing symptoms, although she didn't come into work today. She is scheduled for a test Wednesday morning, but is expecting to return to work tomorrow. According to our HR, even though she may have been directly exposed, we still can't make her stay home, only encourage her.

 

[Muse]

"Airborne" has a specific medical definition that does not include suspended droplets that spend some time in the air. What you heard before was people using the word colloquially to refer to droplet transmission while experts expressed doubt that it was also "airborne" according to the medical definition. I strongly suspected it seeing how it spread through the people quarantined on the diamond princess cruise ship but that isn't how medical research works.

Pretty sure this video about the difference was shared here 4 months ago:

I have heard a lot about airborne versus droplet transmission. Seems to be some confusion concerning this both from an understanding standpoint and from a scientific standpoint, i.e. lack of data. Michael Osterholm 2+ months ago was voicing pessimistic ideas, basically that 6 feet was too optimistic for SD. Also that indoor environments without adequate ventilation could remain dangerous for significant periods of time, IIRC an hour or two. So, that might be considered "airborne," at least by some.

True airborne, I heard, would mean even an N95 mask (without seeping air) would not insure against infection, i.e. that the viral particles could penetrate the mask filter (not need to sit in droplets).

Saw on the news last night that some 200 scientists world wide are pressing the WHO to declare SARS-CoV-2 "airborne." I suppose it's a petition. I'd like to see that petition, or at least read a demystification of all this.

Now, the 6 foot social distancing directive is IMO just this: It won't guarantee that you are safe from getting infected... not at all. What it really represents is the figure they give to the populace that if honored is going to reduce the rate of transmission to levels that quell the outbreaks. The epidemiology is one thing, what you need to do to keep yourself safe is another. Risk tolerance factors into any particular person's intelligent planning and activities in this pandemic

 

[K1052]

Coworker had lunch last Tuesday with a friend, hung out with said friend on Wednesday and found out said friend hung out with someone else over the weekend who tested positive. Coworker's friend got tested, and he ended up positive. My coworker is not showing symptoms, although she didn't come into work today. She is scheduled for a test Wednesday morning, but is expecting to return to work tomorrow. According to our HR, even though she may have been directly exposed, we still can't make her stay home, only encourage her.

The concept of a secure bubble so entirely eludes this country.

 

[Muse]

Coworker had lunch last Tuesday with a friend, hung out with said friend on Wednesday and found out said friend hung out with someone else over the weekend who tested positive. Coworker's friend got tested, and he ended up positive. My coworker is not showing symptoms, although she didn't come into work today. She is scheduled for a test Wednesday morning, but is expecting to return to work tomorrow. According to our HR, even though she may have been directly exposed, we still can't make her stay home, only encourage her.

If my math is correct your coworker will have been exposed 6 days prior to her possible return tomorrow. That's barely beyond the 5 day average incubation for symptomatic cases. Seems a shame to me they can't make her quarantine.

 

[thestrangebrew1]

If my math is correct your coworker will have been exposed 6 days prior to her possible return tomorrow. That's barely beyond the 5 day average incubation for symptomatic cases. Seems a shame to me they can't make her quarantine.

Yea this has me concerned as well. IMO she should be home at least another 2-3 days to see if she develops symptoms. Maybe even the rest of the week but who knows. I'm having a discussion with my Director in about an hour to see if we have any options. She's got the time, but I'm pretty sure she's not going to want to use it to quarantine.

 

[KMFJD]

This is leadership?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1280197752107028481